Mediated by the Tamil Nadu labour department, workers at Samsung’s factory in Sri Peramabadur, Chennai, ended a month-long strike after reaching a deal with the company. Around 1,500 employees had begun the strike on September 9, demanding higher wages, better working conditions, and recognition of their newly formed union, the Samsung India Labour Welfare Union (SILWU). Earning an average of ₹25,000 per month, workers sought a gradual raise to ₹36,000 over three years. Many also reported being made to work beyond their nine-hour shifts without proper overtime pay and being denied leave. Though Samsung did not officially recognise the union, the company agreed to address other issues raised by the employees, which led to the strike’s conclusion. As part of the agreement, the state’s industries minister confirmed that no worker would face retaliation for participating in the strike; and workers too agreed to refrain from activities that harm the interests of management. Samsung later reinforced this position, affirming its commitment to make their Chennai factory ‘a great place to work.’ The strike, one of the largest in recent memory for Samsung, highlighted an issue that has not been addressed by any political party other than the Left parties-the liberalising of the Labour market. In the first half of 2023, Tamil Nadu assembly had passed a bill that would allow a 12-hour workday in case of four day work week being adopted by the employees-a move that would have had devastating results for the unorganised contract workers in many factories. Due to pressure from the labour unions, that was put on hold.
The shift in response to demands from workers
According to Justice Chandru, a former judge and a unionist before he became a judge, in an interview with The News Minute, labour relations in Tamil Nadu have significantly shifted over the past decades. He recalled how in 1968, under C.N. Annadurai, the DMK government remained neutral in labour disputes, instructing police not to interfere. However, after Annadurai’s death, the DMK became more involved by aligning with its own labour wing under M. Karunanidhi’s leadership. He added that later governments, including those of MGR and Jayalalithaa, adopted more repressive measures such as banning strikes and using police force against workers. Justice Chandru opined that an understanding between the government and multinational companies has led to lax enforcement of labour laws, citing an instance where a Korean company was promised no unions would be allowed in its factory. He criticised the current Tamil Nadu government’s handling of the Samsung strike, arguing that their approach mirrored the BJP’s, despite ideological opposition. Furthermore, he emphasised that collective bargaining, once a strong workers’ right, has been reduced to “collective begging,” with labour disputes often delayed in courts, leaving workers without timely justice.
From ‘registration but not recognition’ to ‘neither registration nor recognition’
Trade Unions are supposed to be registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the workers had alleged that there has been a deliberate delay in registering the union. Usually, the cases used to such that a registered trade union is not recognised by the management for bargaining process, but the Samsung case presents another hurdle for the unions.
One of the core demands of the workers in the Samsung factory strike was the formal recognition of the Samsung India Labour Welfare Union (SILWU), a request the company refused to fulfil. Union recognition is a critical issue that managements often use to suppress worker demands, as companies can deny un-recognised unions the authority to represent workers, weakening their ability to bargain collectively.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prohibits Unfair Labour Practices. Section 25T of the Act states that no employer or workman or a trade union, whether registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 or not, shall not commit unfair labour practices. Section 25U of the Act imposes a punishment for violation of Section 25T—up to 6 months imprisonment or with fine which may extend to Rs.1, 000 or both. The Fifth Schedule of the Act lists of Unfair Labour practices and within this, refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the recognised trade unions is also present. Therefore, if companies recognise a union, they will have to bargain with it and failure to do so is punishable.
The complexities surrounding union recognition in India are deeply rooted in the country’s legal framework. While Article 19(1) (c) of the Constitution guarantees the right to form associations or unions, there is no specific provision mandating formal recognition of trade unions by employers. Recognition is a key step that allows unions to engage in collective bargaining, enabling them to negotiate for workers’ interests effectively and maintain stable industrial relations.
However, a clear distinction exists between registration and recognition. The Trade Unions Act of 1926 outlines a process for the registration of trade unions, granting them legal status and certain protections. Despite this, registration does not automatically lead to recognition by employers. Recognition, unless mandated by specific state laws, is generally left to the discretion of employers, creating a fragmented system that allows management to influence and delay the process, further eroding the bargaining power of the unions.
Some states, like Maharashtra, have attempted to address this issue with laws such as the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, which governs union recognition and aims to protect workers from unfair labour practices. Other states, including West Bengal, Kerala, and Odisha, have established procedures for union recognition, which can involve secret ballots or membership verification. In some of these legislations, the applicant trade unions need to have not less than 30% of the membership of the establishment and apply for a recognition by the Industrial Court.
Various methods, such as the check-off system (where union fees are deducted from workers’ wages via authorisation from the worker) and secret ballots (as supported by the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India Staff Union vs. Food Corporation of India, 1995 AIR SCW 1288), are used to determine union representation. However, the absence of a uniform national law leaves recognition vulnerable to manipulation, allowing employers significant leverage in the process. The Code of Discipline, adopted in 1958, serves as a voluntary set of guidelines for maintaining industrial discipline. The Code includes criteria for union recognition, but it is not legally binding
This lack of clarity and consistency in the legal framework creates challenges for unions, leaving them unable to fully represent their members’ interests, thus weakening their influence and reducing workers’ ability to organise effectively.
Conclusion
In the Samsung workers’ case, the government allegedly delayed the registration of the Union in the first place under the Trade Union Act, 1926 thus attracting the ire of the protesting workers.
To conclude, the right to strike in India is not a fundamental right, nor is there a clear legal guarantee for the recognition of trade unions. Both remain largely at the discretion of employers, leaving room for management to suppress workers’ collective bargaining power. This lack of recognition can hinder workers from effectively voicing their concerns or negotiating better terms.
There is a pressing need for laws that establish clear guidelines for mandatory recognition of trade unions. Currently, while the Trade Union Act, 1926 provides for the registration of unions, it does not ensure their recognition by employers. Without a legal obligation to recognise unions, employers often have significant leeway to deny representation, as seen in cases like that of Samsung. A national framework in the form of Industrial Relations Code, 2020 has been proposed in which there were powers to the Union government to frame rules for Union Recognition but the Act has not been implemented yet. The solution could also like bringing legislations similar to state-level acts like the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, which could provide a more uniform approach across India, reducing the ability of employers to exploit the lack of recognition.
However, these issues must be understood in the context of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs), which, though not enforceable in court, provide a guiding framework for governance. Articles 39 and 43 of the DPSPs emphasize fair distribution of resources and securing living wages for workers, underscoring the need for mechanisms that support workers’ rights, including the right to strike.
The Supreme Court in All India Bank Employees’ Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (1962 AIR 17), held that the right to form a union comes under the ambit of the right to form an association under Article 19 (1) (c). There have also been instances of judicial interpretation, such as in Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1962 AIR 1166), where the right to protest was protected but the court refused to declare Right to Strike as a fundamental right. This suggests that strikes, as a form of collective demonstration, may find indirect support in constitutional protections for free speech and assembly but not a direct one.
Ultimately, without robust legal guarantees for union recognition, workers will continue to face barriers in advocating for their rights. Aligning labour laws with the principles laid out in the DPSPs would provide greater protection for workers and strengthen their ability to organize, ensuring that they can not only form unions but also have those unions recognised and respected by employers.
(The author is part of the organisation’s legal research team)
Related:
Victory for Samsung workers in Tamil Nadu: A hard-fought struggle pays off, brings key wins
TN: Samsung Workers Continue Strike, Demand Union Recognition