Trade Unions, Industrial Growth and Constitutional Rights: A Response to Recent Judicial Observations

OPINION PIECE by By C. Srikumar, National Secretary, AITUC / Deputy General Secretary, World Federation of Trade Unions

Recent observations made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India during a hearing on domestic workers, wherein trade unionism was broadly linked to industrial decline, have generated widespread concern among working people and trade unions across the country.

With utmost respect to the judiciary, I wish to place certain facts and constitutional perspectives on record.

Trade union rights are not privileges granted by any government. They are fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, which provides citizens the freedom to form associations and unions. These rights are integral to India’s democratic and welfare-state framework.

Assertions that trade unions are primarily responsible for industrial closures require substantiation through empirical evidence. Parliamentary replies provide important context.

In response to Lok Sabha Question No. 227 on December 1, 2025, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs stated that 2,04,268 private companies closed over the past five years due to amalgamation, conversion, dissolution, or being struck off under provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The same reply also referred to shell companies being removed after prolonged inactivity. Importantly, the government did not attribute these closures to trade union activity or industrial disputes.

Similarly, in a Rajya Sabha reply dated March 25, 2022 (Question No. 2719), the Ministry of Textiles clarified that production in 23 National Textile Corporation mills was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown — again, not due to labour action.

These official records suggest that closures arise largely from business decisions, structural issues, policy environments, and extraordinary circumstances such as the pandemic.

It is also relevant to note that when industries close, it is workers who bear the immediate social and economic consequences. The government itself has acknowledged that such closures are considered part of normal business cycles and that no dedicated rehabilitation fund or scheme currently exists for affected workers.

Contrary to the perception that trade unions obstruct growth, experience in the public sector offers a different narrative. As per the Public Enterprises Survey 2024–25, Central Public Sector Enterprises contributed ₹4.94 lakh crore to the central exchequer in FY 2024–25 and earned a cumulative ₹6.95 lakh crore in foreign exchange over the past five years. These enterprises operate in environments where trade unions are active and organised.

This demonstrates that collective bargaining and industrial performance are not inherently contradictory.

In the defence sector, civilian employees and their federations, including AIDEF, have opposed corporatisation of ordnance factories on policy grounds for nearly five years. Yet production has continued, and unions have consistently engaged constructively by seeking increased workloads, filling vacancies, and safeguarding national manufacturing capacity. This reflects a commitment to institutional continuity rather than disruption.

Available data also indicates that industrial disputes have been declining over time. Closures frequently stem from mismanagement, changing market conditions, or owners’ decisions to exit business. MSMEs, in particular, face severe stress due to limited policy support compared to large corporate enterprises.

Trade unions exist to protect the dignity of labour and prevent exploitation. They are responsible institutions within an industrial democracy. While there may always be scope for improving dialogue mechanisms, portraying organised labour as an obstacle to national development risks oversimplifying complex economic realities.

Equally, seeking statutory protection for domestic workers — including minimum wages and social security — aligns with constitutional values of social justice and cannot reasonably be viewed as adversarial.

With full respect for the independence and authority of the judiciary, I humbly submit that broad characterisations of trade unions, unsupported by material evidence, may inadvertently weaken public confidence in India’s welfare commitments.

I therefore appeal, in a constructive spirit, for a reconsideration of these observations and for a renewed focus on evidence-based assessment of industrial challenges.

India’s development requires cooperation among workers, employers, policymakers, and institutions — not mutual attribution of blame.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and are based on publicly available information and official parliamentary records. They do not necessarily reflect the views of www.indianpsu.com or its editorial team. This opinion is presented in the spirit of constructive democratic dialogue and with full respect for the institutions of the Republic.