The Supreme Court of India has been stern on the issue of the difficulty in compensating construction workers tormented by the suspension of construction sports for the duration of Delhi's excessive pollutants disaster. Expressing deep difficulty over the plight of daily-wage laborers, the Court summoned the Chief Secretaries of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and Punjab to provide an explanation for the failure in disbursing repayment.While such steps are vital for mitigating pollutants, they go away lots of production people without their primary source of earnings. Acknowledging this, the Supreme Court in its in advance guidelines had additionally informed states to provide such monetary comfort to these employees. This fund became created under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act of 1996. Despite clean orders, the implementation remains lacklustre. Reports submitted to the Court found out enormous delays and lapses in compensating employees, prompting the bench, led by means of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, to summon the Chief Secretaries. The Court burdened that such negligence undermines the judiciary's efforts to balance environmental concerns with socio-financial realities. In this hearing, the Court has pointed out that even though the states often discuss pollution control as a reason for halting activities, they rarely mention the livelihood issues that are witnessed. The bench criticized the states for not being responsible rather than the use of the welfare fund, as the fund is mounted to help the people in the course of such crises. It is this determination that the court established inconsistencies of the facts of the people registering within states and this emphasized that the maximum still stands beyond the scope of organized schemes because of inefficiency within administrations. The Chief Secretaries have also been directed to furnish individual reports on measures taken toward making repayment on time, about the popularity of welfare cost of money, and measures proposed and carried forward to improve identification and enrollment. The interlink between environmental and socio-financial problems is highlighted by the Supreme Court intervention. While measures to govern pollution are critical for public health, their unintentional effects can not be disregarded, particularly economic burden on vulnerable groups. This case is a reminder that policymaking should be holistic and implementation mechanisms should be robust. The judiciary also wants to shoulder the responsibility of keeping the authorities accountable so that ripples of this regulatory decision may not cause more chaos. At this point of time, since the Supreme Court is looking for a response from all states, only time will say whether such judicial push could bring about an effective change into the life of Delhi's creation workers.