The recent unofficially released results of trade union verification carried out by the Ministry of Labour have thrown up a few, very significant indicators of the labour movement. First, the verification has shown that trade union membership has increased considerably. This should come as a shock to sceptics who had predicted that the trade union movement was doomed when the processes of economic restructuring, liberalisation and globalisation accelerated after the government introduced its industrial policy statement in 1991.

After the 1991 reforms, the growth of labour in the formal (organised) sector has been more or less stagnant. The 1991 census data shows that the total number engaged in the formal sector was 27 million. The 55^th round of the NSS in 2000 showed that the labour force had increased to 28 million, a mere one million in nine years. The Economic Survey for the year 2004-2005 of the Ministry of Finance shows that the figure has dropped to 27 million, because of a 0.8 per cent reduction in employment in the public sector. Despite this sorry picture, trade unions have not only retained their hold but also, as the results indicate, increased their membership.

Another important indicator is that the larger unions, namely those that are recognised as national federations, have increased their membership mainly in the informal (unorganised) sector. This too is a welcome achievement. In the last verification, held in 1989, it was found that only 1 per cent of the membership of the national federations was in the informal sector. Till recently, these federations had concentrated on labour issues relating to formal employment. The informal sector was regarded as an invisible sector and very few unions attempted to organise these workers. In 1991, there were 270 million workers in this sector, comprising 91.5 per cent of the total labour force. At present, workers in this sector comprise 93 per cent of the work force, and they are largely not unionised. Only trade unions such as the Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) focussed exclusively on women in the informal sector. It is, therefore, heartening to note that the federations are turning to informal sector workers.

Since 2000, the state has tried to introduce some steps for protecting the informal sector. The bill for social security and the National Policy for Urban Street Vendors are two such initiatives relating to the informal sector. The National Policy on Slums can also be regarded as a part of this effort because labour in the informal sector resides mainly in slums.

Though these initiatives were taken by the state because of the growing pressure from unions representing the informal sector, it is significant to note that none of them have been implemented so far. The slum policy has remained in its draft form since it was formulated. The policy on street vendors was accepted by the NDA and the UPA governments but the latter is still dilly dallying with its implementation. Only two states so far have officially accepted the policy. These are UP and Rajasthan. As far as the bill for social security is concerned, the government keeps assuring the public, before each session of Parliament, that it will be passed but it has yet to come up for discussion. So far, the only positive step for the informal sector has been the Employment Guarantee Act that assures 100 days of work annually to rural workers. This too has been introduced in only some districts as an experiment. Therefore, the growing membership among informal sector workers could be one way of making the unions exert pressure on the government to look into their interests. Perhaps the government will be forced to take some concrete steps if this pressure continues. 

Verification and Representation  

Since there is a need for trade unions, a survey of trade unions and their membership break-up becomes important for working class organisations. The competition for being number one in membership is so high that the union in second position invariably protests that the verification was not fair. This happened at the last verification in 1989. The Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), the labour wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), had the most membership, surpassing that of the Indian Trade Union Congress (INTUC), which assumed that it was numero uno, since it had been enjoying this position ever since it was formed in 1947. The union undoubtedly enjoyed this position because of the backing it had from the Congress and its political clout.

Most observers of the labour movement were surprised that the BMS had a very large membership in Delhi whereas this was never noticed by anyone in the capital. The BMS’s main membership was from amongst shop employees. One does not have to be a genius to figure out that this was possible because the shop owners in the capital are staunchly allied to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). We may, of course, give the union the benefit of doubt on whether shop owners registered their employees as members of the BJP-backed union or the employees joined it on their own. INTUC was furious with the interim results and went to court asking for a stay on the release the results officially. The matter is still not sorted out.

The next verification took place 18 years later, in 2007. This time too a similar situation arose. The ministry is unable to declare the results because of pressures from within. None of the unions have gone to court so far but the ministry’s arm is being twisted by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), the trade union associated with the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)]. The federation is annoyed that it has been relegated to the fifth position in the membership hierarchy whereas it was in the third position earlier. What has annoyed the CITU even more is that the preliminary results show that AITUC has a much larger membership than CITU. In fact, AITUC is now number three and CITU has fallen to what was AITUC’s position in the 1989 verification. This is unacceptable to CITU because it feels that the CPI(M)’s hold in three states, namely, West Bengal, Tripura and Kerala should give it higher membership than AITUC, because the political party that is associated with it, the CPI, does not have much political clout.

The main gain of the BMS being declared unofficially number one is that it is invited for all events organised by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), even if the event is for industries where it has no presence. For example, it is invited to represent tea plantation labour, at times as the sole representative from India, in meetings concerning plantation labour. Besides this, there are a host of meetings and conferences organised in different parts of the world where it finds representation. In fact, this is one of the reasons why trade unions want to be at the top. INTUC had this distinction till 1988. It would represent labour at the ILO general body meetings and it got several opportunities to send its leaders abroad on different ILO-related work.

Besides international events, the recognised union also enjoys prestige at national policy making events. This is true not just of the union with the highest membership but also the others that are recognised as national federations. The most important events in this regard are the Indian Labour Conference (ILC), which is held every year. This conference is a tripartite body comprising representatives of labour, employers and government. Those representing labour are exclusively the recognised national federations. The Planning Commission too invites these unions for consultation in matters concerning labour. These unions are also consulted by the Finance Minister before finalising the budget.

National Federations — an Exclusive Club?

Membership verification of trade unions is important also because it is a means of determining which federation can be recognised as a National Federation. Any federation of trade unions, with at least 500,000 members spread over at least four states and in four industries is eligible to be considered as a National Federation. Prior to 1989, there were 10 such recognised federations. The verification of 1989 found that three of these federations did not fulfil all criteria; it was recommended that these be dropped. The seven National Federations were (in the order of their membership) BMS, INTUC, CITU, Hind Mazdoor Sangh (HMS), AITUC, United Trade Union Centre [UTUC (Bow Bazaar)] and UTUC (Lenin Sarani). The last two federations barely qualified, having just a little more than 500,000 members.

Many independent researchers are surprised about how the UTUC (Lenin Sarani) could qualify as a National Federation. This union is associated with the Socialist Unity Centre of India (SUCI), which has limited influence in West Bengal. The other UTUC (the two federations are distinguished by the streets in which their headquarters are located in Kolkata) is associated with the Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP), which, though small, has membership in at least four states.

Current verification figures indicate that the existing national federations have retained the same rankings, except that AITUC and CITU have exchanged positions.

There is considerable internal bickering among the different national federations. However, there is also strong unity among them regarding their indifference to the inclusion of any other union in their midst. There are two significant incidents that show this.

The first instance is concerning a new federation called the National Centre for Labour (NCL). This federation was formed out of several unions representing labour in the informal sector. The major unions with large memberships were the National Forum of Fish Workers, National Federation of Construction Workers and SEWA. There were also unions of forest workers, agricultural workers, workers in small scale industries and casual and contract labour employed in the formal sector. At the time of NCL’s formation, on 1 May 1995, its total membership was over 500,000. Soon after the federation was formally established, it appealed to the labour ministry that it should be invited as a full member of the ILC. This request was denied because only the recognised federations are invitees. NCL constituents decided to stage a silent protest at the venue of the conference. They were whisked away by the police soon after they assembled. Not a single representative of the National Federations protested about this action. NCL continued its pressure and it was invited as observer at the next ILC. Its request to be recognised as a National Federation was never considered. 

The other case is a more recent one involving SEWA. The union which has a large presence in Gujarat has, at present, nearly 1,000,000 members in different states. Though its major membership is in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, other states such as Kerala, Bihar and Delhi too have members totalling over 100,000. The membership is mainly among waste pickers, street vendors, agricultural labourers, beedi rollers, craft workers, etc. SEWA fulfils all criteria for recognition as a National Federation because its membership would make it rank fifth in the present group of national federations.

SEWA applied for the status of National Federation when the current verification drive was on. The Labour Commissioner’s office, which is responsible for verification, did not see any problem in verifying SEWA’s membership. The matter was put up before the committee, which comprises the existing National Federations. The three other federations that were not eligible for recognition are also in the committee because of the stay INTUC obtained in 1989. Most of these federations opposed the verification of SEWA’s membership on technical grounds. One leader even went as far as saying that since it was a ‘gendered’ union (meaning, it only admits women as members), it violated the principle of equality (meaning, it discriminated against men). Even the more liberal unions, such as AITUC and HMS, remained neutral as far as gender sensitivity is concerned though they did not oppose the move.

Of the two unions, NCL did not pursue the matter further. SEWA, on the other hand, wanted to see the case to its logical end. It filed a case in the Delhi High Court and after prolonged hearings, the court ordered the ministry to verify SEWA’s membership. Finally SEWA was granted a national status after the verification of its membership. It has still not been officially invited as an invitee to the ILC. It was given observer status.

How is Membership Verified?

A more important issue concerning membership verification is the process involved.  The Ministry of Labour does not have the means to verify membership at the grass roots level.

Moreover, in the states, the Registrar of Trade Unions registers unions and checks on whether they submit their returns, including their financial statements, regularly. This officer is of the rank of Deputy Labour Commissioner, which is in the middle of the hierarchy in the department. If the government considers trade unions as important institutions, it could surely appoint an official of a higher position, similar to the rank of Labour Commissioner, for this purpose.

In the state governments, the officials who work with the rank-and-file unions are the Labour Officers and Assistant Labour Commissioners. These officials are so fully occupied with their day-to-day activities such as conciliations, enquiries, adjudication and other issues concerning industrial relations that they seldom have the time to physically verify union membership. Hence membership verification is invariably left to the trade unions themselves. They are expected to produce records of their members based on the fee receipts issued to them. Hence, those unions that produce records of the largest number of membership fees are regarded as the larger unions. Neither the central nor the state governments have the means of physically verifying the members. The Ministry has no way of verifying, for example, whether most of the shop employees in Delhi are actually members of the BMS union.

Given this situation, low union fees may encourage the fudging of membership. The Trade Unions Act of 1926 states that the minimum fee should be 25 paise per month or Rs 3 per annum. In many cases, the unions themselves may pay the fees on behalf on their members — genuine or fictitious.

Verification for Recognition

Membership verification at the national level is done mainly by getting an estimate of the number of workers that are unionised. Besides having academic value, this exercise serves no other purpose.

The extent of a union’s membership does not give it the legal right to represent workers or negotiate on behalf of them. There is no law that grants recognition of a trade union. The Trade Unions Act of 1926, which is the most important legal instrument for trade unions, states the rules regarding the registration of a trade union. It lays the guidelines for submitting the returns of the membership and the accounts to the Registrar of Trade Unions. However, it is totally silent on the recognition of a trade union as a bargaining agent on behalf of the workers. This is left to the discretion of the management. As a result, managements can pit one union against another for their own benefit. For example, if, in a factory, one union has 60 per cent of the workers as its members and another union, propped by the management, has a membership of only 5 per cent of the workers, the management can decide to recognise both unions as bargaining agents on equal footing.

Most of the developed countries with long histories of trade unionism have clear laws regarding the recognition of trade unions. Usually the union enjoying majority support among the workers gains this status. Therefore, it is quite surprising that despite so many years of trade unionism in India, there are no legal means of the recognition of a trade union as a bargaining agent in an industry. This is one of the main causes for multiple trade unions at the work place.

This scenario is not a result of the preferences of trade unions. In fact, the national federations would agree on the principle of one-industry, one-trade union, but they disagree on how this representative union should be selected. The main conflict is about whether workers should elect a representative union or whether it should be elected on the basis of membership returns. In fact, all national trade unions, with the exception of one, are in favour of direct elections. The only union opposing this is the INTUC. It has stuck to its stand that membership verification should be the only criterion for the recognition of a union. In fact, this obstinate stand of INTUC has so far blocked any move for recognition of trade unions.

The shortcomings of the membership verification approach for union recognition is clear in the case of Maharashtra, which is the only state to have two laws on union recognition, namely, the Bombay Industrial Relations Act of 1936 (BIRA) and the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (MRTU-PULP). Both Acts recognise the principle of one-industry, one-union and the majority union is given this recognition. BIRA is applicable only to the textile industry. Besides Maharashtra, three other states, namely Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, have similar acts for the textile industry. The MRTU-PULP Act is applicable to eight industries in the state.

The colonial government apparently passed BIRA mainly to prevent communists from emerging as the main bargaining agent in the then thriving textile industry. In Mumbai, the communists union, Mumbai Girni Kamgar Union (MGKU), was popular among the textile workers, and had led several militant trade union actions against the employers, but was not regular in collecting membership subscriptions.

The implementation of these Acts reveals that membership verification and, subsequently, recognition based on membership subscriptions is full of problems.

First, very few unions collect membership fees regularly because they do not have the requisite staff to do so. Also, recognised unions have the advantage of deducting membership fees directly from the workers’ pay. This is known as the check-off system. Though the collection of membership fees is easier this way, it requires the cooperation of the management. Most of the Left unions, especially the AITUC, are opposed to this system as it implies that the management can pressure the union to toe the line.

Second, this system makes it difficult to replace a recognised union with another union. The latter will not easily be able to show that its membership is higher because it will have to collect this membership through its union activists.

Third, a union’s influence among workers can be wider than its membership and this aspect is never examined during verification.

The best example of the above problems can be found in the case of the textile industry in Mumbai. Both the MGKU and the Rashtriya Mill Mazdur Sangh (RMMS) organised support among the textile workers. The MGKU gave calls for strikes from the 1940s through the 1970s, which were totally successful. The RMMS had always opposed these strikes but workers never responded to its call, even though it was the recognised union. Despite this, it was not possible, under the existing laws, for the MGKU to gain recognition. The records showed that RMMS had a larger membership, because of the check-off system. In fact, according to the records, all mill workers were members of RMMS whereas those with MGKU had dual membership.

This difference between membership and influence became explicit in 1981 when the MGKU led by the late Dr Datta Samant entered the field. Within a short span of its formation, it became the most popular union of the textile workers. The union led a strike in April 1981 which brought the whole industry to a standstill. There were a number of demands placed by the union to the Bombay Mill Owners’ Association, including the regularisation of casual workers and an increase in pay. As the strike proceeded, it became evident that the main demand by the workers was the removal of RMMS as the recognised union. The employers and government were willing to negotiate on all issues except that of recognition. The strike lasted for 18 months and is recognised as longest strike involving the largest number of workers in Mumbai. During this period, all 52 mills in Mumbai remained closed. Though RMMS opposed the strike, its call went unheeded by the workers. After 18 months, when the mills reopened, the issue was not resolved and RMMS remained the recognised union.

This problem could have been solved if workers were allowed to choose their representative union through elections. In fact, in 1995, when the Shiv Sena-BJP government was elected in the state, the labour minister had announced that the government would amend BIRA and MRTU-PULP by including the selection of the recognised union through elections. A committee was also set up to examine the feasibility of this change. The aim of the government was to curtail the influence of RMMS as it was affiliated to INTUC. However, the Shiv Sena leadership found that elections could remove not just RMMS from its position but could also bring changes in other unions under MRTU-PULP. The Bharatiya Kamgar Sena of the Shiv Sena was the recognised union in two major industries — cooperative banks and the state transport corporation. When they discovered that elections could change the leadership in these unions as well, the government developed cold feet and the move was shelved.

In conclusion, the issue of union verification has remained a controversial and unresolved issue. There must be more efficient and accurate means of determining trade union membership. The state must provide enough staff with adequate training for this purpose, as it does for census operations.

However, the most important fact is that verification of membership will remain a farce as long as there are no legal mechanisms for recognising trade unions as representatives of labour. This can be done by amending the Trade Unions Act or by a new law on industrial relations.