Samsung workers’ strike entered its 25th day on October 3, in Kancheepuram.
| Photo Credit: B. VELANKANNI RAJ

The principal demand of the striking workers of Samsung Electronics India Pvt. Ltd in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu, was that their newly formed Samsung India Workers Union (SIWU) should be registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The protest, which lasted more than 30 days, was an epic struggle in more than one way. All leading trade unions in Tamil Nadu extended their support to the workers’ demand, as did unions in other companies.

For the past 17 years, Samsung India has resisted the formation of a trade union. In June 2024, the workers formed the SIWU. They affiliated it to the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) and applied for the union’s registration under Section 8 of the 1926 Act. Under the Act, the Registrar of Trade Unions, on being satisfied that the application is in order, has no option but to register the union.

Trade Unions Act

The Trade Unions Act is an important piece of legislation. In the early 1920s, workers of Binny Mills in Chennai (then known as Madras) went on strike. The management filed a civil suit claiming huge damages, which the union leaders could ill afford to pay. After the Act came into force, Sections 17 and 18 gave members of a registered trade union immunity from criminal and civil consequences. But for this, workmen would not be able to engage in collective action.

Also Read | Samsung strike: Workers arrested as battle for union recognition continues

The Act enables outsiders and political leaders to be office-bearers of a union. The union can collect funds for the political interests of its members. Many trade unions have been registered in the nearly 100 years since. But Samsung’s objections were mainly two: the use of the name Samsung by the union, and outsiders being a part of the union.

Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution guarantees the right to form a trade union. The enforcement of this right is also a fundamental right under Article 32 of the Constitution. Despite the statutory provision and the fundamental right under the Constitution, the Samsung management has opposed the formation of a trade union. When, strangely, the Registrar of Trade Unions did not act on SIWU’s application, the union had no other option but to move the Madras High Court seeking a direction to the Registrar to issue a certificate of registration.

The Act is clear, and the prayer before the High Court is also simple. The trade union is the only party that can appear before the Registrar of Trade Unions. The company, however, filed a petition before the Registrar objecting to the use of the name Samsung.

The objection is not only not maintainable but also totally untenable as the union is only asking for the name Samsung India Workers Union to be registered under the Trade Unions Act. It is not a registration under the Trademarks Act, which bars competing businesses from using the name of another company. The registration of the union is a non-monetary demand.

Onus on Samsung

A similar objection was negated by the Karnataka High Court when State Bank of India objected to the use of its name by the employees’ union. Ironically, in South Korea, the Samsung workers’ union is called National Samsung Electronics Union.

The company must reckon with the existence of a trade union and follow the laws of this country, which allow the formation of a trade union and give immunity to union members when they opt for collective action. Had the Registrar registered the trade union, there would have been no need for the workers to go on strike, much less move the court.

The leaders of various trade unions have criticised the company and the State government. Su. Venkatesan, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) MP from Madurai, said that the workers were only protesting for their rights in a democratic way. Pattali Makkal Katchi leader Anbumani Ramadoss condemned the Tamil Nadu government for using oppressive measures against the workers.

The rights of the working class are protected under the law of the land, and in this matter, the State government did not act properly. The Labour Progressive Front (LPF), the trade union wing of the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), made it appear as though the SIWU was demanding recognition of the trade union, little understanding the fundamental difference between registration and recognition. As far as registration is concerned, the law is very clear, and the company has hardly any say in the matter. Be it a local industrialist or a multinational company, the law is the same. The DMK union, for reasons best known to it, appears to have been attempting to mislead the working class.

Government’s stand

The question being asked now is regarding the policy of the State government towards workers wanting to form a trade union in a multinational company. The government’s initial stand was that it was principally a matter between the company and the workers. As days passed, the State government did not ascertain whether the company had acted as per the law and unleashed the police on the protesting workers to break the strike. The police tore down the pandals put up for the agitation and also arrested the protesting workers. The government told CITU leaders not to magnify the strike. But the struggle was only for the basic right to form a trade union. The government did little to resolve the issue but issued a unilateral statement that the union had withdrawn the strike with no mention of the government’s stand on the union’s registration. The signs were unmistakable that the government had chosen to back the multinational company.

Also Read | No difference between what is said by Samsung and Tamil Nadu government: E. Muthukumar

To resolve the struggle once and for all, the Tamil Nadu government must ensure that the union is registered.

The governments at the Centre and in the State are not concerned about the constitutional goal to better the living standards of workers, who have been betrayed time and again. Capital and profits are the strong arm of the owning classes. The protection given by the Trade Unions Act for collective struggle helps the working class gain some strength in an unequal relationship. It is here that the State’s role in the Samsung struggle assumes importance.

N.G.R. Prasad and K.K. Ram Siddhartha are advocates in Madras High Court. The former appeared for the petitioner.

When the workers of the Samsung Electronics unit in Sriperumbudur, 40 km from Chennai, went on strike for better wages and improved conditions on September 9, little did they realise that their struggle would evolve into a watershed moment in Tamil Nadu’s labour movement in the post-liberalisation era. When it finally ended on October 16, it had lasted for 38 days, becoming the longest industrial unrest in recent times. The last such prolonged strike was in 2018 at the Royal Enfield factory, which lasted for 50 days.

Also Read | Our main demand is recognition of the union; if that happens, we will call off strike: A. Soundararajan

The strife at the Samsung plant began like any other labour unrest and was confined to the striking workers of the South Korean electronics giant, their families, and supporters. The Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), the labour wing of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), was the lone organisation that supported it in the early stages. However, when the strike showed no signs of ending, various political parties in Tamil Nadu including allies of the ruling party, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), jumped in, causing acute embarrassment for the State government.

Major crisis

The issue soon snowballed into a major crisis, and the DMK government feared that it would drive away potential investors who had been promised a hassle-free and peaceful industrial environment and thwart the State’s ambitious mission to transform into a $1 trillion economy by 2030. The DMK was also apprehensive that the strike would raise uncomfortable questions about its “Dravidian model” of development. Pushed to a corner, the DMK government decided that it was in its best interests to “end” the strike as early as possible. It is this haste that led to misunderstanding and friction not only among the workers but also among its allies. It is now clear that when the strike began, little thought had gone into how the government ought to respond in the event of a prolonged stir. In fact, in the initial phases of the strike, the DMK’s labour wing, the Labour Progressive Federation (LPF), had supported the CITU and the striking workers.

As the strike prolonged, the State government finally sent its Ministers as envoys. However, the first tripartite meeting, led by a committee of three Ministers—T.R.B. Rajaa (Industries), T.M. Anbarasan (Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, or MSME), and C.V. Ganesan (Labour)—failed to break the logjam, and at this point, the LPF quietly withdrew its support. LPF general secretary M. Shanmugam even accused the CITU of “blowing out of proportion the demands of workers and refusing to put an end [to the strike]”.

It was clear that the ministerial committee had handled the issue clumsily. Having wrangled some guarantees from the Samsung management, including for better wages and amenities, the government prematurely declared that the strike had ended. But the CITU and the striking workers had rejected the deal. Their main demand was that the CITU-backed Samsung India Workers Union (SIWU) be registered, but the company objected to this, claiming that its main concern was the union having Samsung in its name.

Government missteps

At this time, the State government made its second mistake. It sent the police to intimidate the workers, dismantled the tent at the protest site, and even arrested a few workers. This added fuel to the fire and led to the allegation that the government was acting in cahoots with the company. Following this, CITU leader A. Soundararajan warned that there might be some “serious political ramifications”. He said: “The government seems to have apprehensions that the Samsung strike might spread to other industrial units.” The CITU refused to buckle under pressure, political or non-political, and the Samsung workers, too, remained united and strong.

For Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, the strike had now become a political hot potato. On the one hand, he wanted to please the multinational and send out the signal that the environment in Tamil Nadu was investment-friendly. On the other, not only had his allies gone against him, his own party’s image of fighting for workers’ rights was under attack.

Drawing flak from multiple quarters, he ordered a second tripartite meeting with a rehashed committee. The MSME Minister was replaced by Public Works Minister E.V. Velu. This time, an agreement was reached with the understanding that the demands of the workers that would be officially finalised would include registration of the union, improved wages and working conditions, and a commitment that no retributory action would be taken. A visibly relieved Stalin took to X to express happiness.

Legal challenge

Meanwhile, the writ petition filed in the Madras High Court by P. Ellan, general secretary of the newly formed SIWU, seeking registration came up for hearing. Samsung filed a petition to implead itself in the case. In its representation, the company objected to the use of the word “Samsung” in the labour union’s name, which it claimed would affect the “company’s reputation”. Its counsel G. Rajagopalan also claimed that the company had incurred a loss of around $100 million as a result of the strike.

Also Read | Samsung strike: Workers arrested as battle for union recognition continues

The senior lawyer N.G.R. Prasad, appearing for the petitioner, told the court that this was not a trademark dispute. “We are not rivals in their business,” he said. He pointed out that the writ was confined to the trade union and its registration, and the Trade Unions Act, 1926, did not prohibit the use of a company’s name. The case has been adjourned to November 11.

The Samsung strike appears to have reignited the labour union movement in Tamil Nadu and rekindled the hopes of the working class that they will be able to fight against exploitation. Politically, the CPI(M) appears to have decided to identify itself closely with labour issues once again.

In today’s exploitative neoliberal environment, marked by widespread uncertainty affecting skilled and unskilled workers, both organised and unorganised, and with the rise of artificial intelligence posing a new challenge to labour, trade unions face an uphill battle. They must work harder than ever to safeguard both industrialisation and the rights of workers.

While the unrest has been sorted out for the time being, there is still speculation about how similar issues will play out in future and whether the State government, as the nodal agency of mediation, will stand by workers.