What did the striking Samsung workers want?

Their demand was simple—registration of the union under the Trade Unions Act of 1926. But Samsung used its name as a shield against worker rights.

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.

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.

Royal Enfield employees on a strike in Kancheepuram in October 2018 that lasted for 50 days. | Photo Credit: B. VELANKANNI RAJ

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.

Also in this issue:

The decline of trade unions in Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu’s labour movement finds new voice in Samsung strike victory

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.

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.