In the 'absence of strict domestic compliance', can the Supreme Court directly read the provisions of ILO Conventions (specifically regarding forced labour and discrimination) into the fundamental rights of the workers ?

Yes, the Supreme Court may rely upon and read the principles contained in International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions as a tool to interpret the scope of constitutional rights, ensuring that the "absence of strict domestic compliance" does not deprive workers of their fundamental rights, provided that such international norms are not inconsistent with domestic law. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that international conventions and norms can be used as an interpretative tool to expand the scope of Fundamental Rights, particularly Articles 14, 21, 23 and 24 of the Constitution. ILO Conventions Ratified by India Convention No. 29 (Forced Labour Convention, 1930) & ILO Convention No. 105 (Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957): Prohibits all forms of forced or compulsory labour. The Constitutional Rights are available to inter-state migrant workers as well. The restriction of movement and withholding of identity documents strips the workers of their autonomy, effectively turning them into bonded labourers in violation of Article 23. Paying them less than the local workers violate Article 14 and ILO Convention No. 111. The Supreme Court has given an expansive significance to the term "forced labour" used in Article 23(1) in a series of cases beginning with the Asiad case in 1982. ( People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473 ).