exercise of power given under section 11 of the Act by the Minister, has resulted in a situation where domestic workers have been disadvantaged. 63. The Court is aware that, indirect discrimination demands tribunals to look beneath the surface and consider the consequences of State’s conduct and laws to ensure that there is no discrimination, on the basis of an analogous or prohibited ground, lurking underneath. This Court holds the view that the inclusion of domestic workers in the Minister’s Pension (Exemption) Order, does not amount to any indirect discrimination. Domestic workers are not exempted from the mandatory occupation pension scheme ‘based on attributes or characteristics which have the potential to impair the fundamental dignity of persons as human beings, or to affect them seriously in a comparable serious manner.’1 64. It is our firm belief that the exemption of domestic workers recognizes the unique and informal nature of domestic work which makes it impossible for them to be put on pension in the same manner as employees in formal employment. We are persuaded by the Attorney General’s submission that the categorical distinction is rationally connected to legitimate governmental purposes including administrative feasibility, financial and compliance implications, employment protection, and progressive policy implementation. 1 Harksen v Lane NO and Others 1998 (1) SA 300 (CC) para 46. This South African case reported on SAFLII defines an analogous ground of discrimination. Page 24 of 45