May Day and the Betrayal of India's Working Class: A Century of Struggle, a Cycle Unbroken

May 01, 2025
By PUCL Bulletin Editorial Board, Guest Author - D. Nagasaila

As we mark May Day—International Workers’ Day—it is necessary to reflect not only on past victories but also on present failures. Two issues urgently demand our attention: the growing erosion of independent trade unionism and the steady expansion of the contract labour system, now disguised under modern euphemisms such as privatisation, outsourcing, and the latest buzzword, gig work. Despite the change in nomenclature, the underlying reality remains: exploitation and disempowerment of workers.

India, disturbingly, seems to be circling back to where it all began.

A Century Ago: From Madras to Washington

In 1918, at the Buckingham & Carnatic Mills (commonly known as Binny Mills) in Madras, workers were given only a few minutes for a lunch break—barely enough time to swallow a few bites before rushing back to avoid being locked out. B.P. Wadia, a Bombay-based lawyer and Theosophist, visited the mills upon hearing of these conditions. His intervention led to the formation of India’s first organised trade union, the Madras Labour Union, on 27 April 1918, with Wadia as its first president.

The workers of Binny Mills undertook several strikes. In retaliation, the management sued the union leaders for damages and sought a perpetual injunction against them. The courts awarded damages amounting to ₹7 lakhs—a staggering amount at the time—and made the leaders personally liable for causing losses to the employer.

This prompted Wadia to take the matter to the International Labour Conference in Washington, USA, highlighting the plight of Indian workers on a global platform. The resulting pressure on the colonial regime led to the Trade Union Act of 1926, which granted registered trade unions legal status and, more importantly, immunity for their office bearers and members from civil and criminal liability for acts committed in the course of legitimate trade union activity.

Today: Back to Square One?

Fast forward a century, and workers in India are still battling to form unions. The case of Samsung India’s Sriperumbudur plant is telling. For 17 years, the management resisted the formation of a union. In 2024, a month-long strike was launched by workers demanding registration of the Samsung India Workers Union, affiliated to the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU). Samsung objected to the use of its name in the union’s title, citing trademark infringement, and opposed the inclusion of external members.

Both objections were legally untenable. The Trade Union Act, 1926 clearly permits up to 50% of union office-bearers to be outsiders. Furthermore, trade union registration is governed by labour law—not trademark law. Ironically, in South Korea, Samsung’s own home turf, the official union is called the National Samsung Electronics Union.

Despite this, the Tamil Nadu Registrar of Trade Unions refused to register the union—despite having no legal discretion to reject a compliant application. The First National Commission on Labour (1969), chaired by Justice Gajendragadkar, had recommended that the Registrar be bound to process such applications within 30 days. That recommendation was never enacted. The Samsung workers had to seek legal recourse in the Madras High Court, which finally directed the Registrar to act. The union was eventually registered on 27 January 2025.

This ordeal is emblematic of a broader malaise. Even today, trade unions are viewed by many employers as threats to be neutralised—either by suppression or by co-opting through pliant, management-controlled unions. Politicisation has further weakened the movement: when trade union wings are tethered to political parties, class solidarity often takes a backseat to party loyalty.

The Legacy and Languishing Laws

Parallel to the struggle for union rights is the slow dismantling of protections for informal and contract workers—despite decades of legislative effort. The Royal Commission on Labour (1931) was among the first to recommend the abolition of contract labour, acknowledging its incompatibility with fair labour practices. Similar conclusions were reached by:

  • The Bombay Textile Enquiry Committee
  • The Bihar Labour Enquiry Committee (1946)
  • The National Commission on Labour (1969)

These findings informed a series of worker-centric legislations, including:

  • The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961
  • The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966
  • The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
  • The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979
  • The Cine-Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981
  • The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996

Each of these laws aimed to establish minimum working conditions in sectors where employer-employee relationships are often undefined and exploitative. These included safeguards such as proper housing, medical care, weekly holidays, and fair wages.

Yet the enforcement machinery—mostly the Labour Departments—has remained chronically under-resourced and apathetic. Worse, these workers are often not unionised, leaving them without collective power to demand enforcement.

The Forgotten Law: Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979

No law’s neglect has been more glaring than that of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979. The horrors faced by migrant workers during the COVID-19 lockdown exposed this vividly. Stranded, unpaid, and abandoned, millions walked hundreds of kilometres to reach home—while governments were caught off guard, lacking even basic data on how many migrant workers existed or where they were employed.

The 1979 Act, if implemented, could have averted this humanitarian disaster. It mandates:

  • Registration of all establishments engaging inter-state migrant workers
  • Licensing of all contractors recruiting workers for out-of-state employment
  • A Passbook for each worker containing:
    • Photograph
    • Place and period of employment
    • Wages and payment method
    • Return fare details
    • All information in a language understood by the worker
  • Mandatory provisions of residential accommodation, medical care, and rest facilities by both the principal employer and contractor
  • Inter-state coordination, allowing one state to depute officials to another to oversee the welfare of its workers

Only Kerala, among all states, had systems in place during the pandemic to trace, support, and repatriate its migrant workforce.

The Gig Worker Mirage

Today, “gig work” is hailed as the future of labour. Yet the proposed Gig Worker Welfare Acts, like the one passed in Rajasthan, are poised to repeat the same story—well-intentioned but under-enforced. Without collective organisation and unionisation, these laws will remain paper tigers.

The Road Ahead

History has shown that legislation alone cannot protect workers. It was never the law that empowered the working class—it was organisation. From Binny Mills to Samsung Sriperumbudur, every hard-won right has been the result of collective struggle. If India is to move forward, it must return to this foundational truth.

On this May Day, let us remember: the right to unionise is not a privilege. It is a constitutional guarantee under Article 19(1)(c). The future of labour depends not on benevolent legislation, but on the resurgence of an independent, vibrant, and principled trade union movement—one that cannot be silenced, co-opted, or ignored.

(This guest Editorial was authored by D. Nagasaila, practicing Advocate at the Madras High Court)