7 remigrate are concerned about retaliation from an employer if they file a legal complaint against wage theft. Apart from them, the victims agree to any attempt to access justice mechanisms in the destination countries. In the Indian context, the reintegration of migrants is limited to economic reintegration. The massive cases of wage theft and other grievances among the repatriated workers indicate that addressing and solving the grievances of migrant workers need to be part of the long-run, sustainable reintegration strategies. Regarding remigration, the stakeholders, including the government, shall find avenues of co-operation with the destination countries to ensure the safety and well-being of the workers who fight legal battles with the employers. 2.8. Access to grievance mechanisms and legal services Among the 1004 respondents who lost their jobs since March 2020, only 3.3% received advice about addressing the non-payment of wages. Social workers or friends advised the workers to approach lawyers and legal consultants, and less than one percent of the workers received verbal advice regarding grievance redressal. Unsurprisingly, the respondents were reluctant to respond to the workplace concerns and the employers' behaviour. Even though there were grievance redressal and complaint mechanism set up by Indian missions and state government agencies available in countries of origin and destination, the workers have shown hesitancy in accessing these services to mitigate their grievances on wage theft. The workers who faced non-payment of any type were confused about whether to file a complaint at the destination or give preference to the emergency repatriation. Most of them preferred the latter and travelled without any agreements for receiving their payments or issuing powers of attorney to the lawyers for pursuing their claims. The workers, especially low-skilled workers in the informal sector and undocumented workers, were unaware of the services offered by the government. The panic and lack of support to fight the cases in the destination countries also contributed to the poor access to grievance redressal mechanism. Among the victims of wage theft, only 26% of the workers were aware of the MADAD platform, and 6% of the workers availed the helpline facilities provided by Indian missions, national and state governments to report their grievances on wage theft. Unsurprisingly, none of the workers managed to file a legal complaint in the destination countries. Two workers, both were HR professionals, narrated that the courts were closed for a long time and legal firms were not ready to take up cases during the first phase of COVID-19. However, they started having financial constraints later, which prevented them from filing cases when the courts have begun their operations. A set of respondents were afraid to ask for pending wages while some of them have already been mentally preparing themselves to meet any uncertain situation. Thus, the repatriated workers are demoralized in every sense about accessing legal services and claiming their dues and benefits. 3. HOW DID STAKEHOLDERS RESPOND? Apart from data gathering at the ports for ensuring the quarantine facilities of the repatriated workers, the government of India did not carry out any proactive steps to address the grievances of migrants. The government believes that the existing grievance redressal mechanism is enough to address the concerns. This approach was also emphasized in both houses of parliament in response to the questions of members. However, the government had introduced a data bank of skilled returnees in the recent past. The platform helps the migrant workers to reintegrate themselves into the domestic labour market by sharing the information with the employers. The new emigration draft bill 2021, also does