Lecture Note 1 & 2

The relation between an employee and an employer in the course of running of

an industry and may project itself to spheres which may transgress to the areas
of quality control, marketing, price fixation and disposition of profits among
others.

It is a set of functional interdependence involving historical, economic, social,

psychological, demographic, technological, occupational, political and legal
variables.

Three key players: the employer, the employee and the government.

Emergence of Industrial society

Agrarian
Craftsman
Mechanization
Industrialization

Rural Urban

Industrial Relation is directly related with Industry. We are not studying dynamics
of Family Relations like in Sas bhi kabhi Bahu thi. We are not studying relations
in “Live in Relationship”. We are studying relations in Industry.
Fitness business? Barber shop? Bollywood? Airlines? IT? Construction?
Telecommunication? Petro-chemical? Steel manufacture? Textile?

Roots of the subject are in Industry. It is a phenomenon of last few centuries. To

be precise, last two centuries. Prior to that what was the situation? To
understand the profound changes in the human civilization and emergence of the
concept of the industry itself , we must closely study how the economics have
changed.
What was the situation in India two hundred years back? It was an agrarian
society. Means what? Basically, most of the population was occupied with,
dependent on the agriculture for their sustenance. Does it mean that everybody
was in agriculture? No, there were few persons who were artisans- weavers,
metal-workers, carpenters, cobblers, tailors, masons and so on. There were
some persons who were in trade and commerce, money-lending, physicians
(vaids) preachers, priests etc. and of course the rulers!! It was not unique with
India. It was the story all over the world. It was the same story in Europe too.
But story started changing five centuries back. There was renaissance in Europe.
For two centuries starting from 1500 to 1780, number of scientific discoveries
were made in Europe. There were great mathematicians like Sir Isaac Newton,
Liebnitz, Gauss and other scientists like Sir Robert Hook, Boyle, etc. Universities
like Oxford, Cambridge in Great Britain, Goettingen in Germany , Leiden in
Netherlands flourished and added so much to our knowledge of fundamental
sciences.
This Knowledge Revolution is followed by the Industrial Revolution.
The factory system was a method of manufacturing first adopted in England at
the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and later spreading abroad.
Fundamentally, each worker created a separate part of the total assembly of a
product, thus increasing the efficiency of factories. Workers, paid by wage, and
machines were brought together in a central factory. All the processes of
production would be carried out under one roof, and would continue as long as it
was practical. Inconclusively, Richard Arkwright is the person credited with being
the brains behind the growth of factories. After he patented his water frame in
1769, he established a factory at Cromford, in Derbyshire, England. The factory
system was a new way of organizing labour made necessary by the development
of machines which were too large to house in a worker's cottage. Working hours
were as long as they had been for the farmer, that is, from dawn to dusk, six
days per week. It reduced the worker to an unskilled commodity who could be
easily replaced.
Debate arose concerning the morality of the system, as workers complained
about unfair working conditions prior to the passage of labour laws. Child labour
was also a major part of the system, and was vehemently argued by those who
deemed it immoral. Robert Owen created his utopian socialist factories
specifically to not conform to this system.
Sir Richard Arkwright (3 January 1733 – 3 August 1792), was an Englishman
who is credited for inventing the spinning frame — later renamed the water frame
following the transition to water power. A self-made man, he was a leading
entrepreneur of the Industrial Revolution. Arkwright's achievement was to
combine power, machinery, semi-skilled labour, and a new raw material (cotton)
to create, more than a century before Ford, mass production. His mechanical
abilities and, above all, his genius for organization made him more than anyone
else, the creator of the modern factory system. Arkwright, the youngest of
thirteen children, was born in 1732 in Preston, Lancashire, England. His parents,
Sarah and Thomas, were very poor and could not afford to send him to school
and instead arranged for him to be taught to read and write by his cousin Ellen.
Thomas Arkwright was a tailor in Preston. Richard, however, was apprenticed to
a Mr. Nicholson, a barber at nearby Kirkham. Richard, therefore, began his
working life as a barber and wig-maker, setting up a shop in Bolton in the early
1750s.

Arkwright married his first wife, Patience Holt, in 1755. They had a son, Richard
Arkwright Junior, who was born the same year. In 1756, Patience died of
unspecified causes. The descendants of this marriage are still around today.
Arkwright later married Margaret Biggins in 1761. They had three children, of
whom only Susanna survived to adulthood. It was only after the death of his first
wife that he became an entrepreneur. Arkwright also had a mistress; her
surname was 'Hodgkinson', but her first name is unknown. It has been suggested
to be 'Ada'.
Water frame

On his own Arkwright took an interest in spinning machinery that turned cotton
into thread. In 1768 he and John Kay, a clockmaker, relocated to the textile
centre of Nottingham. In 1769 he patented the water-frame, a machine which
produced a strong twist for warps, substituting metal cylinders for human fingers.
This made possible inexpensive yarns to manufacture cheap calicoes, on which
the subsequent great expansion of the cotton industry was based. Arkwright and
John Smalley set up a small horse-driven factory at Nottingham. Needing more
capital to expand, Arkwright partnered with Jedediah Strutt and Samuel Need,
wealthy hosiery manufacturers, who were nonconformists. In 1771 the partners
built a the world's first water-powered mill at Cromford, which had water power
and skilled labor. Arkwright spent £12,000 perfecting his machine which
contained the "crank and comb" for removing the cotton web off carding engines.
Arkwright had mechanized all the preparatory and spinning processes, and he
began to establish water-powered cotton mills even as far away as Scotland. His
success encouraged many others to copy him, so he had great difficulty in
enforcing the patent he was granted in 1775. His spinning frame was a significant
technical advance over the spinning jenny of James Hargreaves.

After this, Arkwright returned to his home county and took up the lease of the
Birkacre mill at Chorley, a catalyst for the town's growth to becoming one of the
most important and industrialised towns of the Industrial Revolution.

By 1774 the firm employed 600 workers; in the next five years it expanded to
new locations. He was invited to Scotland where he helped establish the cotton
industry. A large new mill at Birkacre, Lancashire, was destroyed, however, in the
anti-machinery riots in 1779. Arkwright in 1775 obtained for a grand patent
covering many processes that he hoped would give him monopoly power over
the fast-growing industry, but Lancashire opinion was bitterly hostile to exclusive
patents; in 1781 Arkwright tried and failed to uphold his monopolistic 1775
patent. The case dragged on in court for years but was finally settled against him
in 1785, on the grounds that his specifications were deficient and that he had
borrowed his ideas from Leigh reed-maker Thomas Highs. The story is that
clock-maker Kay, who had been commissioned by Highs to make a working
metal model of Highs's invention, had given the design to Arkwright, who formed
a partnership with him.

Arkwright also created another factory, Masson Mill. The factory was made from
red brick, which was expensive at the time. In the mid 1780s, Arkwright lost many
of his patents when courts ruled them to be essentially copies of earlier work.
Despite this, he was knighted in 1786 and was High Sheriff of Derbyshire in
1787.

Aggressive and self-sufficient, Arkwright proved a difficult man to work with. He

bought out all his partners and went on to build factories at Manchester, Matlock,
Bath, New Lanark (in partnership with David Dale) and elsewhere. Unlike most
entrepreneurs, who were nonconformist, he attended the Church of England.

Recognition

Arkwright's achievements were widely recognized; he served as high sheriff of

Derbyshire and was knighted in 1786. Much of his fortune derived from licensing
his intellectual rights; about 30,000 people were employed in 1785 in factories
using Arkwright's patents. He died at Willersley Castle, the mansion he had built
overlooking his Cromford mills, on 3 August 1792, leaving a fortune of £500,000.
He was buried at St. Giles Church in Matlock. His remains were later moved to
St. Mary's Church in Cromford

The Arkwright Society, set up after the two hundredth anniversary of Cromford
Mill, now owns the site and works to preserve the industrial heritage of the area.

Inventions

An Arkwright water frame that was made in 1775.

Richard himself had previously assisted Thomas Highs, and there is strong
evidence to support the claim that it was Highs, and not Arkwright, who invented
the spinning frame. However, Highs was unable to patent or develop the idea for
lack of finance. Highs, who was also credited with inventing a Spinning Jenny
several years before James Hargreaves produced his, probably got the idea for
the spinning frame from the work of John Wyatt and Lewis Paul in the 1730s and
40s.

The machine used a succession of uneven rollers rotating at increasingly higher

speeds to draw out the roving, before applying the twist via a bobbin-and-flyer
mechanism. It could make cotton thread thin and strong enough for the warp, or
long threads, of cloth. Arkwright moved to Nottingham, formed a partnership with
local businessmen Jedediah Strutt and Samuel Need, and set up a mill powered
by horses. But in 1771, he converted to water power and built a new mill in the
Derbyshire village of Cromford.

It soon became apparent that the huge town would not be able to provide enough
workers for his mill. So he built a large number of bungalows near the mill and
imported workers from outside the area. He also built the Greyhound public
house (Greyhound Hotel) which still stands in Cromford market square. The hotel
is planned to become a museum of Richard Arkwright. In 1776 he purchased
lands in Cromford, and in 1788 lands in Willersley, on both occasions the vendor
being Peter Nightingale, father of Florence Nightingale.

In 1775, Arkwright took out a patent for a carding machine, the first stage in the
spinning process, replacing the hand-carding that the factory used until then. The
high royalties that he charged on both inventions encouraged others to challenge
his patents in court. The second patent was overturned, but not before he had
become a very rich man.

His main contribution was not so much the inventions as the highly disciplined
and profitable factory system he set up, which was widely followed. There were
two thirteen-hour shifts per day including an overlap. Bells rang at 5 am and 5 pm
and the gates were shut precisely at 6 am and 6 pm. Anyone who was late not
only could not work that day but lost an extra day's pay. Whole families were
employed, with large numbers of children from the age of seven, although this
was increased to ten by the time Richard handed the business over to his son.

Arkwright encouraged weavers with large families to move to Cromford. He

allowed them a week’s holiday a year, but on condition that they could not leave
the village. Later in life, he himself taught the simple branches of education.
Arkwright was later known as 'the Father of the Industrial Revolution'.

Patent problems

In 1781, Arkwright went to court to protect his patents, but the move redounded
when they were overturned. Four years later, after seeing his patents restored
temporarily, the truth finally came out in another, definitive court battle. Thomas
Highs, a remorseful John Kay, Kay's wife and the widow of James Hargreaves all
testified that Arkwright had stolen their inventions. The court agreed: Arkwright's
patents were finally laid aside.

Memorials

• Richard Arkwright's barber shop in Churchgate, Bolton was demolished

early in the last century. There is a small plaque above the door of the
building that replaced it, recording Arkwright's occupancy.
 • Sir Richard Arkwright lived at Rock House in Cromford, opposite his
original mill. In 1788 he purchased an estate from Florence Nightingale’s
father, William, for £20,000 and set about building Willersley Castle for
himself and his family. However just as the building was completed it was
destroyed by fire, and Arkwright was forced to wait a further two years
whilst it was rebuilt. He died aged 59 in 1792, never having lived in the
castle, which was only completed after his death. Willersley Castle is now
a hotel owned by the Christian Guild company.

Following is an obituary for Richard Arkwright written a few days after his death.

• The youngest of thirteen children, Sir Richard Arkwright was born in

Preston on 23 December 1732. Arkwright will be remembered by most for
his reformation of the way that people work. No one has had greater
influence and indeed revolutionised industry than Sir Richard Arkwright. At
60 years of age, Arkwright died one of the richest men in England. It is
estimated that his fortune amounted to something in the region of
£500,000. In 1762 Arkwright started a wig-making business. This involved
him traveling the country collecting people's discarded hair. While on his
travels, Arkwright heard about the attempts being made to produce new
machines for the textile industry. Arkwright also met John Kay, a
clockmaker from Warrington, who had been busy for some time trying to
produce a new spinning-machine with another man, Thomas Highs of
Leigh. Kay and Highs had run out of money and had been forced to
abandon the project. To Arkwright’s amazement, John Kay invited him to
help produce this remarkable new machine. Arkwright accepted Kay’s
offer and employed a local craftsman, and miraculously, it wasn’t long until
the four actually produced the brand new “Spinning Frame”. Arkwright
patented this and his “Water Frame” in 1769, which caused great rivalry
between him and other cotton spinning entrepreneurs. In 1771 Arkwright
invented the world’s first water powered cotton mill at Cressbrook in
Derbyshire. A series of court cases followed as Arkwright attempted to
prosecute rivals who had infringed his patents, culminating in an action
brought by The Crown in 1785. Surely, Arkwright’s contribution to the
cotton industry entitles him to be referred to the father of the industrial
revolution and will always be remembered for his great, albeit stolen,
inventions.
•
The field of industrial relations (also called labour relations) looks at the
relationship between management and workers, particularly groups of workers
represented by a union.

Labour relations is an important factor in analyzing "varieties of capitalism ", such

as neocorporatism , social democracy , and neoliberalism.

Labour relations can take place on many levels, such as the "shop-floor", the
regional level, and the national level. The distribution of power amongst these
levels can greatly shape the way an economy functions.

Another key question when considering systems of labour relations is their ability
to adapt to change. This change can be technological (e.g., "What do we do
when an industry employing half the population becomes obsolete?"), economic
(e.g., "How do we respond to globalization?"), or political (e.g., "How dependent
is the system on a certain party or coalition holding power?").

Governments set the framework for labor relations through legislation and
regulation.

The academic discipline of labor studies is closely related to and often studied
and taught in conjunction with the study industrial and labor relations in english
language universities.

When studying the theories of industrial relations, there are three major
perspectives that contrast in their approach to the nature of workplace relations.
The three views are generally described as the unitary, pluralist and Marxist
perspectives. The Marxist perspective is sometimes referred to as the Conflict
Model. Each offers a particular perception of workplace relations and will
therefore interpret such events as workplace conflict, the role of trade unions and
job regulation very differently.

Unitary perspective

In Unitarianism, the organization is perceived as an integrated and harmonious

whole with the ideal of "one happy family", where management and other
members of the staff all share a common purpose, emphasizing mutual
cooperation. Furthermore, unitarism has a paternalistic approach where it
demands loyalty of all employees, being predominantly managerial in its
emphasis and application.

Consequently, trade unions are deemed as unnecessary since the loyalty

between employees and organizations are considered mutually exclusive, where
there can't be two sides of industry. Conflict is perceived as disruptive and the
pathological result of agitators, interpersonal friction and communication
breakdown.

Pluralistic perspective

In pluralism the organization is perceived as being made up of powerful and

divergent sub-groups, each with its own legitimate loyalties and with their own set
of objectives and leaders. In particular, the two predominant sub-groups in the
pluralistic perspective are the management and trade unions.

Consequently, the role of management would lean less towards enforcing and
controlling and more toward persuasion and co-ordination. Trade unions are
deemed as legitimate representatives of employees, conflict is dealt by collective
bargaining and is viewed not necessarily as a bad thing and, if managed, could in
fact be channeled towards evolution and positive change.

Marxist/Radical Perspective

This view of industrial relations looks at the nature of the capitalist society, where
there is a fundamental division of interest between capital and labour, and sees
workplace relations against this history. This perspective sees inequalities of
power and economic wealth as having their roots in the nature of the capitalist
economic system. Conflict is therefore seen as inevitable and trade unions are a
natural response of workers to their exploitation by capital. Whilst there may be
periods of acquiescence, the Marxist view would be that institutions of joint
regulation would enhance rather than limit management's position as they
presume the continuation of capitalism rather than challenge it. There are two
variants of this view - the pessimist view propounded by Lenin, Trotsky and
Michels and the optimist view propounded by Marx and Engels.

Social democracy is a political ideology of the political left and centre-left that
emerged in the late 19th century from the socialist movement and continues to
exert influence worldwide.

The concept of social democracy has changed throughout the decades since its
inception. The fundamental difference between social democratic thought and
other forms of socialism such as orthodox Marxism is the belief in the primacy of
political action as opposed to the primacy of economic determinism. Historically,
social democratic parties advocated socialism in the strict sense, achieved by
class struggle. In the early 20th century, however, a number of socialist and labor
parties rejected revolution and other traditional teachings of Marxism and went
on to take more moderate positions, which came to characterize modern social
democracy. These positions often include support for a democratic welfare state
which incorporates elements of both socialism and capitalism, usually resulting in
the form of a mixed economy. This differs from traditional socialism, which aims
to replace the capitalist system entirely with a new economic system. Social
democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and
the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove the social injustice
and inefficiencies they see as inherent in capitalism.

In many countries, social democrats continue to exist alongside democratic

socialists, who stand to the left of them on the political spectrum. The two
movements sometimes operate within the same political party, such as the
Brazilian Workers' Party and the French Socialist Party. In recent years, several
social democratic parties (in particular, the British Labour Party) have embraced
more centrist, Third Way policy positions. This development has generated
considerable controversy.

The Socialist International (SI) is the main international organization of social

democratic and socialist parties. It affirms the following principles: first, freedom
—not only individual liberties, but also freedom from discrimination and freedom
from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders
of abusive political power; second, equality and social justice—not only before
the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal
opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities;
and, third, solidarity—unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice
and inequality. These ideals are described in further detail in the SI's Declaration
of Principles.

Pre-World War II

Many parties in the second half of the nineteenth century described themselves
as social democratic, such as the German Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeiterverein
and the Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei (which merged to form the
Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands), the British Social Democratic
Federation and the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. In most cases
these parties were avowedly revolutionary socialist, seeking not only to introduce
socialism, but also to introduce democracy into nations lacking democratic
institutions. Most of these parties were to some extent influenced by the works of
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who were at that time working abroad, in
London, to influence Continental European politics.

The modern social democratic movement came into being through a break within
the socialist movement in the early years of the twentieth century. Speaking
broadly, this break can be described as a parting of ways between those who
insisted upon political revolution as a precondition for the achievement of
socialist goals and those who maintained that a gradual or evolutionary path to
socialism was both possible and desirable. Many related movements, including
pacifism, anarchism, and syndicalism arose at the same time; these ideologies
were often promulgated by individuals who split from the preexisting socialist
movement, and held a variety of quite different objections to Marxism. The social
democrats, who had created the largest socialist organizations of that era, did not
reject Marxism (and in fact claimed to uphold it), but a number of key individuals
wanted to reform Marx's arguments in order to promulgate a less hostile criticism
of capitalism. They argued that socialism should be achieved through evolution
of society rather than revolution. Such views were strongly opposed by the
revolutionary socialists, who argued that any attempt to reform capitalism was
doomed to fail, for the reformers would be gradually corrupted and eventually
turn into capitalists themselves.

Despite their differences, the reformist and revolutionary branches of socialism

remained united through the Second Internationale until the outbreak of World
War I. A differing view on the legitimacy of the war proved to be the final straw for
this tenuous union. The reformist socialists supported their respective national
governments in the war, a fact that was seen by the revolutionary socialists as
outright treason against the working class; in other words, the revolutionary
socialists believed that this stance betrayed the principle that the workers of all
nations should unite in overthrowing capitalism, and decried the fact that usually
the lowest classes are the ones sent into the war to fight and die. Bitter
arguments ensued within socialist parties, as for example between Eduard
Bernstein, the leading reformist socialist, and Rosa Luxemburg, one of the
leading revolutionary socialists within the SPD in Germany. Eventually, after the
Russian Revolution of 1917, most of the world's socialist parties fractured. The
reformist socialists kept the name social democrats, while many revolutionary
socialists began calling themselves communists, and they soon formed the
modern Communist movement. These communist parties soon formed an
exclusive Third Internationale known globally as the Comintern.

By the 1920s, the doctrinal differences between social democrats and

communists of all factions (be they Orthodox Marxists, Bolsheviks, or
Mensheviks) had solidified. These differences only became more dramatic as the
years passed.

Post-World War II

Following the split between social democrats and communists, another split
developed within social democracy, between those who still believed it was
necessary to abolish capitalism (without revolution) and replace it with a socialist
system through democratic parliamentary means, and those who believed that
the capitalist system could be retained but needed dramatic reform, such as the
nationalization of large businesses, the implementation of social programs (public
education, universal health care, and the like) and the partial redistribution of
wealth through the permanent establishment of a welfare state based on
progressive taxation. Eventually, most social democratic parties have come to be
dominated by the latter position and, in the post-World War II era, have
abandoned any commitment to abolish capitalism. For instance, in 1959, the
Social Democratic Party of Germany adopted the Godesberg Program, which
rejected class struggle and Marxism. While "social democrat" and "democratic
socialist" continued to be used interchangeably, by the 1990s in the English-
speaking world at least, the two terms had generally come to signify respectively
the latter and former positions.

In Italy, the Italian Democratic Socialist Party was founded in 1947, and from
1948 on supported the idea of a centrist alliance. Since the late 1980s, many
other social democratic parties have adopted the "Third Way", either formally or
in practice. Modern social democrats are generally in favor of a mixed economy,
which is in many ways capitalistic, but explicitly defend governmental provision of
certain social services. Many social democratic parties have shifted emphasis
from their traditional goals of social justice to human rights and environmental
issues. In this, they are facing an increasing challenge from Greens, who view
ecology as fundamental to peace, require reform of money supply, and promote
safe trade measures to ensure ecological integrity. In Germany in particular,
Greens, Social Democrats, and other left-wing parties have cooperated in so-
called red–green alliances. The present government in Norway is a red-green
alliance.

Present

Many of the policies espoused by social democrats in the first half of the 20th
century have since been put into practice by social democratic governments
throughout the industrialized world. Industries have been nationalized, public
spending has seen a large long-term rise, and the role of the state in providing
free-to-user or subsidized health care and education has increased greatly. Many
of the reforms made by social democrats in Europe, such as the establishment of
national health care services, have been embraced by liberals and
conservatives, and there is no support outside of a radical fringe for a return to
19th-century levels of public spending and economic regulation. Even in the
United States, where no major social democratic party exists, there are
regulatory programmes (such as public health and environmental protection) and
welfare programmes (such as Medicare and Medicaid) which enjoy bipartisan
support.

However, since the 1980s, there has been a perception that social democracy
has been on the retreat in the Western world, particularly in English-speaking
countries, where social democratic values are arguably not as firmly rooted in
local law and culture as elsewhere. In recent years, a number of historically
social democratic parties and governments have moved away from some
traditional elements of social democracy by endorsing Third Way ideals and thus
supporting both the privatization of certain state-controlled industries and
services and the reduction of certain forms of regulation of the market. The
adoption of Third Way ideology by many social democrats has proved divisive
within the broader social democratic community. Traditional social democrats
argue that Third Way ideology has caused the movement to become too centrist,
and even that the movement may be becoming centre-right. In general, apparent
reversals in policy have encountered significant opposition among party
members and core voters; many of the latter have claimed that their leaders have
betrayed the principles of social democracy.

Supporters of Third Way ideals argue that they merely represent a necessary or
pragmatic adaptation of social democracy to the realities of the modern world:
traditional social democracy thrived during the prevailing international climate of
the post-war Bretton Woods consensus, which collapsed in the 1970s. It has,
moreover, become difficult for political parties in the developed world to win
elections on a distinctively left-wing platform now that electorates are increasingly
middle-class, aspirational and consumeristic. In Britain, where such an electorate
rejected the Labour Party four times consecutively between 1979 and 1997,
Third Way politician Tony Blair and his colleagues in the New Labour movement
took the strategic decision to overtly disassociate themselves from the previous,
strongly democratic socialist incarnations of their party. The Labour Government
that came to power in 1997 continued the tradition that Margaret Thatcher started
in the 1980s of selling out nationalized industries, and the income gap between
the rich and the poor grew. This challenge to traditional social democractic ideals
alienated many backbenchers, including some who advocated a less militant
ideology of social democracy.

The development of new social democratic policies in this environment is the

subject of wide-ranging debate within the left and centre-left. A number of
political think-tanks, such as Policy Network and Wiardi Beckman Stichting, have
been active in facilitating and promoting this debate.

In general, contemporary social democrats support:

• A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and publicly owned

or subsidized programs of education, health care, child care and related
social services for all citizens.
• An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent
advocated by socialists), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects
of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following
illness, unemployment or retirement.
• Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of
workers and consumers by ensuring labor rights (i.e. supporting worker
access to trade unions), consumer protections, and fair market
competition.
• Environmentalism and environmental protection laws; for example,
funding for alternative energy resources and laws designed to combat
global warming.
• A value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government
expenditures.
• A secular and a socially progressive policy, although this varies markedly
in degree.
 • Immigration and multiculturalism.
• Fair trade over free trade.
• A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of
human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
• Advocacy of social justice, human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil
liberties.

Political parties

Social democratic political parties, which sometimes also include a democratic

socialist element, operate in many developed and developing countries, including
France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, Israel and Brazil. Most
European social democratic parties are members of the Party of European
Socialists, which is one of the main political parties at the European level, and
most social democratic parties worldwide are members of the Socialist
International. In many cases, social democratic parties are the dominant (India,
United Kingdom, Portugal) or second-placed (Italy, Sweden, Germany) players
within their respective political systems, though in some cases they are minor
parties (Canada, Ireland, Russia). The United States is the only industrial nation
that does not currently possess a major social democratic party, though social
democratic ideology is one strand of thinking within the more broadly based
Democratic Party.

Since the 1960s, many social democrats have broadened their objectives beyond
the field of economic policy to include aspects of environmentalism, feminism,
racial equality and multiculturalism. Another notable development is the tendency
since the 1980s for social democratic parties to distance themselves from
distinctively left-wing economic policies such as public ownership and dirigisme,
adopting instead policies that support a relatively lightly regulated economy and
emphasize equality of opportunity. This trend, known as the Third Way, is
controversial among some of the left, many of whom argue that Third Way
parties (such as the UK's Labour Party) have moved too far to the centre, or even
the centre-right. Others, such as the leadership of the UK Labour Party, reject
this critique.

Criticism

The majority of contemporary criticism of social democracy comes from fiscal or

social conservatives and classical liberals. Critics advance the following
arguments:

• The regulations placed on the market by social democracy tend to limit

economic efficiency and growth, and impede the creation of wealth that
may be needed to alleviate global poverty.
 • Social democratic programs sometimes entail large government outlays,
which can result in sizable budget deficits.
• State provision of education, health care, childcare and other services is
inefficient, limits individual choice, and requires users to pay more if they
opt to use privately-run services.

Social democrats reply along the following lines:

• Social democratic policies actually enhance individual rights by raising the

standard of living of the great majority of the population, giving equal
opportunity in education, increasing social mobility and raising the power
of workers and consumers in society.
• The unregulated market that fiscal conservatives advocate is incapable of
addressing global poverty and inequality in an equitable way.
• Social democracy stabilises economic conditions by providing economic
security and health care to individuals and eliminating the threat of
extreme poverty.
• The argument that social democratic governments spend too much and
run up deficits is undermined by the record of conservative administrations
(e.g. in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom) which have
run up unprecedented deficits.
• By restricting some economic rights, social democracy makes the market
fairer (for small businesses and consumers, for example).

There is also criticism of social democracy from socialists and communists, who
regard it as an obstacle to truly radical reform of society. Left-wing critics claim
that social democrats are forced to operate within the constraints of the existing
capitalist system, and that they buy into that system to such an extent that they
eventually become indistinguishable from pro-capitalist right-wingers. To take
specific examples, it is argued that Tony Blair (UK), Gerhard Schröder
(Germany) and to a lesser extent Göran Persson (Sweden) violated the
principles of social justice and equity while in office by implementing tax cuts,
cuts in social spending, privatisation and deregulation.

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF TRADE UNIONS IN INDIA

Trade union as per Trade Union Act 1926 – “ Any combination formed
primarily for the purpose of regulating the relations between workmen and
employers or workmen and workmen or employers and employers or for
imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business and
includes any federation of two or more trade unions.”

From the above definition it is clear that Trade union is not just an association of
the workmen of a factory or a trade or a business but also can be formed by
officers and managers. Trade union movement in India was started and led by
philanthropists and social organizations and not by the workers.
Bombay Presidency - by servants of India society

Eastern India - by Brahmo Samaj

South India centered around Madras - by Theosophical Society

Trade union is a direct product of Industrialization and a very recent

development. In India, the foundation of modern industry was laid between 1850
and 1870. Prior to that trade was confined to individuals and families like
craftsmen and artisans. They had expertise and specialized skills which was
inherited by their offsprings. After Industrial revolution, these people started
losing their individual identities and had to join factories to earn their livelihood
and compete with mass production. There was a psychological dislocation as
they were losing their identities.

Indian trade union movement can be divided into three phases.

The first phase falls between 1850 and 1900 during which the inception of trade
unions took place. During this period of the growth of Indian Capitalist
enterprises, the working and living conditions of the labour were poor and their
working hours were long. Capitalists were only interested in their productivity and
profitability. In addition to long working hours, their wages were low and general
economic conditions were poor in industries. In order to regulate the working
hours and other service conditions of the Indian textile labourers, the Indian
Factories Act was enacted in 1881. As a result, employment of child labour was
prohibited. Mr. N M Lokhande organized people like Rickshawalas etc., prepared
a study report on their working conditions and submitted it to the Factory Labour
Commission. The Indian Factory Act of 1881 was amended in 1891 due to his
efforts. Guided by educated philanthropists and social workers like Mr.
Lokhande, the growth of trade union movement was slow in this phase. Many
strikes took place in the two decades following 1880 in all industrial cities. These
strikes taught workers to understand the power of united action even though
there was no union in real terms. Small associations like Bombay Mill-Hands
Association came up.

The second phase of The Indian trade union movement falls between 1900 and
1947. this phase was characterized by the development of organized trade
unions and political movements of the working class. It also witnessed the
emergence of militant trade unionism. The First World War (1914-1918) and the
Russian revolution of 1917 gave a new turn to the Indian trade union movement
and organized efforts on part of the workers to form trade unions. In 1918, B P
Wadia organized trade union movements with Textile mills in Madras. He served
strike notice to them and workers appealed to Madras High Court because under
‘Common Law’, strike is a breach of law. In 1919, Mahatma Gandhi suggested to
let individual struggle be a Mass movement. In 1920, the First National Trade
union organization (The All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC)) was
established. Many of the leaders of this organization were leaders of the national
Movement. In 1926, Trade union law came up with the efforts of Mr. N N Joshi
that became operative from 1927.

The third phase began with the emergence of independent India (in 1947), and
the Government sought the cooperation of the unions for planned economic
development. The working class movement was also politicized along the lines of
political parties. For instance Indian national trade Union Congress (INTUC) is
the trade union arm of the Congress Party. The AITUC is the trade union arm of
the Communist Party of India. Besides workers, white-collar employees,
supervisors and managers are also organized by the trade unions, as for
example in the Banking, Insurance and Petroleum industries.

LABOUR LAWS
Law—“ Law is a rule or a system of rules recognized by a country or a
community as regulating the actions of its members and enforced by the
imposition of penalties.”

Factors responsible for development of Labour laws

 Exploitation of the workmen by the capitalists

 Social pressure and pressure from trade unions

 Government policies based on Government philosophy which in turn

was based on the political ideologies

 Constitution of India (Directive Principles of state policy)

 Supreme Court’s recommendations on the cases that came up in the

courts

 Recommendations of various commissions and committees set up by

government from time to time

 Conventions and recommendations of International labor organization

(ILO)

 Awareness about environment

Common features of all laws

 Short title and commencement

 Preamble i.e. purpose of the law

  Definitions

 Substantive provisions

 Penalty provisions

 Records/ Registers/ Returns

 Inspectorate/ Enforcement authority

Categories of Labour Laws

 Regulatory legislations to oversee the conditions of work at workplace

Eg. Machinery arrangement, spittoons, working hours, leave with

wages etc.

 Legislations related to wages

Eg. Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Minimum Wages Act, 1948

 Legislations related to social security

Eg. ESI Act, 1948, Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952

 Legislations related to Industrial Relations (IR)

Eg. Industrial disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Employments (Standing

Orders) Act, 1946, Trade Union Act, 1926

 Legislations related to service conditions

Eg. Regulations of environment Act (for Dock workers), Conditions

of Service Act (for Sales Promotion employees)

 Miscellaneous

Eg. Apprentices Act, 1961, Environment protection Act, 1986

In this paper, I would be discussing about the four legislations related to

Wages/Remunerations along with the necessary definitions and calculations.

1. THE EQUAL REMUNERATION ACT, 1976

2. THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936

 3. THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948

4. THE PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT, 1965

THE EQUAL REMUNERATION ACT, 1976

1975 was the benchmark year in the Indian history because there was an
emergency declared in the Indian state by the Government and strikes by Trade
unions were prohibited. The year was International Women’s Year and the
Government introduced The Equal remuneration Act in 1976. The article 39d of
the Indian Constitution i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy says: ‘Equal pay
for equal work for both men and women.’ This was the connection of the Act with
the constitution.

I should define ‘Same or Similar nature of work’ before going any further on the
act. It means “a work in respect of which the skill, effort and responsibility
required are the same when performed under similar working conditions by a
man or a woman.”

Therefore, the Act says that no employers should pay to any workman who is
employed by him, a remuneration at rates less favourable than those at which
the remuneration is paid by him to a worker of opposite sex who is performing
the same or similar nature of work. In simpler terms, same remuneration is to be
paid to both men and women workers for same or similar nature of work.

The Act does not disturb ‘Wage Differential’ i.e. the differences in wages in the
same grade on the basis of length of service. The law is not universally
applicable to all industries. Till now 76 industries have been covered by the
legislation. There will not be any revision of service prior to the commencement
of the Act.

The Act also encourages employment of Female workers. These workers will:

 Be entitled to certain benefits amongst which the prominent one is

The Maternity benefit Act

 Not be allowed to work between 7pm to 6am

 Face severe restrictions between 10pm to 5am

 Not be allowed to work in mines

THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936

Provisions of the Act:

  Payment to be made on time

 Payment to be made in cash

 No unauthorized deductions to be allowed

There are two kinds of industrial establishments under the law:

 Less than 1000 employees

 More than 1000 employees

Law obliges an employer to fix a wage period under this act. If the establishment
is the first type i.e. number of employees is less than 1000, then the wage period
(the period within which the wage to the employees has to be paid) is 7 days. If
the establishment has 1000 or more employees, then the wage period is 10
days.

This would be clear with a small example as below:

 Week ending – 03/03/05

 Month ending – 30/06/05

< 1000 employees 1000 or more employees

If weekly wages is given then, If weekly wages is given then,

It is within 10/03/05 it is within 13/03/05

If monthly wages is given then, If monthly wages is given then,

It is within 07/07/05 it is within 10/07/05

Total deductions shall not exceed 50% of the wages. However, in case of Co-
operative societies it can go upto 75% of the wages.

Example:

Basic (Rs.) DA (Rs.) Allowances (Rs.) Total (Rs.)

1000 250 150 1400

Deductions not more than 50% i.e. Rs.700

In case of Co-operative societies not more than 75% i.e. Rs. 1050

If 10 or more employees refuse to work or go on a strike, then the deductions will

not be only on pro-rata basis but an additional deduction to the extent of 8 days
wages will be made. The employer has to issue a show-cause in case of
deductions for damages and any damage due to willful negligence is liable for
deductions.

If an employer fines, then the following procedure has to be followed by him:

 Employer will have to develop a list of acts and conditions for which
fine can be imposed

 The list should be approved by the appropriate government

 It should be displayed at a conspicuous place

 As and when the employee commits such act, a show-cause notice is

to be issued asking for explanations

 The explanation considered, if found satisfactory, ends the matter

then and there

 Otherwise, fine may be imposed by the employer

Restrictions on employers regarding imposition of fine:

 Not more than 3% of the wages payable can be imposed as fines

 Fines cannot be recovered in instalments. It must be one time

recovery

 It must be recovered within the period of 60 days from the date of

imposition

 No fine can be imposed on an employee of age below 15 years

 The money/fine recovered shall be transferred to a welfare fund

Contracting out:

Any agreement between the employer and employee outside the provisions of
the Payment of Wages Act, shall be considered null and void.

Example: If an employer is going through acute financial losses and the

employee enters into an agreement with the employer to receive the wages after
2 months, then the agreement will be null and void and wages payment has to be
made within the stipulated time period of 7 or 10 days as the case may be.

The claims made by employees on account of payment made not within time or
on account of unauthorized deductions, will be settled by an authority appointed
by the Government called Payment of wages authority.

THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948

Wage is nothing but the price of labour sold by labourers to employers. Its rate is
determined by the forces of demand & Supply in the market. Since supply of
labour is high in the Indian market and the rates are low, Government enacted
The Minimum Wages act to fix the minimum wage rate to be paid by the
employer.

The purposes of this act are:

 To empower the government to fix or to revise minimum rates of

wages in the Scheduled Employments i.e. those employments that are
listed in the Schedule

 Wages to be paid in cash but where a part is paid in kind, government

may allow the continuance of such wages. Example of payment of wages
in kind includes agricultural products
  Wage rates may be fixed on hourly, daily, monthly basis

Minimum rates of wages may differ from employment to employment, from

location to location and also amongst different classes of workmen (Adults,
children, adolescents)

It is one of the most flexible legislations and can be very seldom challenged in
the Court of Law.

There are two alternative procedures for fixing or revising minimum wage rate,
out of which the government can adopt any one.

 Committee method: Under this method, Government forms a

tripartite committee of employers, employees and independent persons
(mainly Government officers). This committee examines the prevailing
situation in Industry and makes recommendations based on that. On
receipt of such recommendations, government fixes the minimum wage
rate with or without modifications.

 Notification method: Under this method, the government itself

suggests the minimum rate of wages for an employment. It makes a
proposal and gets it notified in the official gazette for information of all
concerned. After 2 months of wait for any suggestions/recommendations
by employments, government takes up the proposal in light of the
comments it receives and finalizes it with/without modifications.

After the fixation or revision of minimum wage rate, it has to be published in the
official gazette.

An authority appointed by the Government called Payment of wages authority will

settle the claims made by employees.

Contracting out is not allowed in this Act also.

At this juncture, I would highlight certain points of difference between The

Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which
unless made clear might create confusion in the minds of the readers.

THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948 THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936

Wage rate is fixed by government which Wage rate is fixed by Collective Bargaining
can be daily, weekly monthly or Industrial Tribunal or Wage Board
Nothing is mentioned about wage Wage period is fixed by employer and can
period in the Act be weekly, monthly etc.
The Act is applicable to Scheduled The Act is applicable to all Industrial
employments only which is an establishments, which is an organized
unorganized sector sector.
Empowerment Enactment

Both Cash & Kind payments Only Cash payments

THE PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT, 1965

Bonus payment started much before the law was enacted in Ahmedabad textile
mills both in cash and kind. It was a payment to employees to face the rigours at
work. Gradually by 1929-30, large number of employers all over the country
started it out of his own sweet will. It was an ex-gratia concept. By 1930’s, the
union started clamoring for such payments on claims that they are also entitled to
a share in company’s profits since they contribute a great deal to earn it. Hence,
the concept changed from ex-gratia to Profit sharing. The problem now faced by
the management was computation of accurate profits. A High court Commission
was ordered to compute the profits. In 1961, Bonus Commission was set up by
the Government of India. Later unions felt that bonus should be paid to everyone
and devised a new concept called Deferred Wages. The argument was that their
wages were so low that they were unable to save any sum of money. Demand
under deferred wages was 13 months wages for 12 months i.e. 1 month wage to
be paid during festivals.

In the Law, Concept of Profit sharing and Deferred wages was integrated and the
Payment of Bonus Ordinance, 1965 was converted to The Payment of Bonus
Act, 1965. The law is applicable to factories and other establishments employing
20 or more persons.

Since, the main concept of the act is Profit sharing, Bonus is calculated on the
basis of trading results of an establishment during a particular accounting year.
Each accounting year is a unit and there is no relationship between last and next
accounting year.

Only those employees who are drawing a salary/wage not more than Rs. 3500
per month are covered under this act. Capacities of the employees on the basis
of skilled/unskilled are not taken into consideration.

Computation of Bonus: Hypothetical example Rs.

 Net Profit
10,00,000

 Add: Add backs charged to

 Profit & Loss account in respect

of those items included in

Schedules I and II 5,00,000

 Gross Profit
15,00,000

 Less: Deductions like direct tax,

Depreciation and 6%-8.5% of

Equity capital 7,50,000

 Available Surplus
7,50,000

 60% of Available surplus is

Allocable surplus 4,50,000

Allocable surplus is to be distributed as Bonus to the employees. The law obliges

an employer to pay a minimum of 8.33% of the wage bill as bonus subject to a
maximum of 20% of wage bill. This will be made clear from the following
examples.

Hypothetical example: Rs.

Total wage bill 45,00,000

Allocable surplus (from the above example) 4,50,000

Therefore, 10% of the wage bill (Rs. 4,50,000) will be paid as bonus to the
employees with salary not more than Rs. 3500/month.

Yearly wage (Rs.) Bonus @ 10% (Rs.)

Employee X 30,000 3,000

Employee Y 15,000 1,500

: : :

: : :

: : :

: : :

: : :

45,00,000 4,50,000

If wage bill is Rs. 90,00,000, then allocable surplus of Rs. 4,50,000 would form
only 5% of the wage bill. This is less than the minimum amount of bonus payable
i.e. 9.33% of wage bill. The minimum amount to be paid is Rs. 7,50,000 (8.33%
of Rs. 90,00,000) and the allocable surplus is Rs. 4,50,000. A shortfall of (Rs.
7,50,000 - Rs. 4,50,000) Rs. 3,00,000 is created which is set off against next
accounting year’s allocable surplus. Hence, Set off can be defined as – When
there is no Available surplus or the Allocable surplus is insufficient to pay the
minimum Bonus payable, then that shortfall will be carried forward to the next
accounting year and upto and including four consecutive accounting years.

Similarly, if the wage bill is Rs. 9,00,000, the allocable surplus of Rs. 4,50,000
forms 50% of the wages paid. Maximum bonus that can be paid is 20% of the
wage bill i.e. Rs. 1,80,000. So, the excess allocable surplus of Rs. 2,70,000 (Rs,
4,50,000 – Rs. 1,80,000) will be set on to the next accounting year and upto and
including four accounting years subject to a maximum of 20% of the wages. This
means that only Rs. 1,80,000 will be set on for the next accounting year and the
rest Rs. 90,000 will get cancelled.

The Bonus on a wage of Rs. 2500 and upto Rs. 3500 will be calculated on the
amount of Rs. 2500.

Hypothetical example.
 Monthly Yearly Bonus
declared

Wages (Rs.) Wages (Rs.) @ 10%

Employee A 1,500 18,000 1800

Employee B 2,000 24,000 2400

Employee C 3,000 36,000 3000

Employee D 36,000 4,32,000 ***

Employee C will get a bonus on Rs. 30,000 (Rs. 2500 *12) @ 10% i.e. Rs. 3000
whereas Employee D is not eligible for a bonus as his salary exceeds the
maximum amount of Rs. 3500 per month.

Dr. Dutta Samant (also Datta Samant, and popularly referred to as

Doctorsaheb, 1933-January 16, 1997) was an Indian politician and trade union
leader, who is most famous for leading an estimated 200–300,000 textile mill
workers in the city of Bombay (now Mumbai) on a year-long strike in 1982, which
led to the closure of the textile mills from the city.

Contents
[hide]

• 1 Trade union and political career

• 2 1982 strike
• 3 Later life and murder
• 4 See also
• 5 References

• 6 External links

[edit] Trade union and political career

Samant grew up in Deobag on the Konkan coast of Maharashtra, hailing from a

middle-class Marathi background. He spent much of his early years in the locality
of Ghatkopar in Mumbai, in the state of Maharashtra. From the early 20th
century, the city's economy was characterized by major textile mills, the base of
India's thriving textile and garments industry. Hundreds of thousands of people
from all over India were employed in working in the mills. Although a trained
medical doctor, Samant was active in trade union activities amongst mill workers.
Samant was deeply influenced by communism, but he joined the Indian National
Congress and its affiliated Indian National Trade Union Congress. Gaining
popularity amongst city workers, Samant name was popularly known as
Doctorsaheb.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the Mumbai-Thane industrial belt witnessed successive
working class strikes and protests, with multiple trade unions competing for the
allegiance of workers and political control. These primarily included George
Fernandes, the Centre for Indian Trade Unions . Samant rose to become one of
the most prominent INTUC leaders, and grew increasingly militant in his political
convictions and activism. Samant enjoyed success in organizing strikes and
winning substantial wage hikes from companies. He ignored the company's
statistics and business information, and consistently refused to settle on
compromise concessions. He was elected to the Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha, or
legislative assembly on a Congress ticket, and served briefly as a legislator.
Samant was arrested in 1975 during the Indian Emergency owing to his
reputation as a militant unionist, despite belonging to the Congress party of
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Samant's popularity increased with his release in
1977 and the failure of the Janata Party coalition, with which many rival unions
had been affiliated. This increased his popularity and widespread reputation for
putting workers and their interests before politics.

[edit] 1982 strike

In late 1981, Samant was chosen by a large group of Mumbai mill workers to
lead them in a precarious conflict between the Bombay Millowners Association
and the unions, thus rejecting the INTUC-affiliated Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh
which had represented the mill workers for decades. Samant was requested by
mill workers to lead. He suggested that they wait for outcome of initial strike
action. But workers were too agitated and wanted a massive strike. At the
beginning of which an estimated 200,000–300,000 mill workers walked out,
forcing the entire industry of the city to be shut down for over a year. Samant
demanded that along with wage hikes, the government should scrap the Bombay
Industrial Act, 1947 and de-recognize the RMMS as the only official union of the
city industry. While fighting for greater pay and better conditions for workers,
Samant and his allies also sought to capitalize and establish their power on the
trade union scene in Mumbai.

Although Samant had links with the Congress , Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
considered him a serious political threat. Samant's control of the mill workers
made Gandhi and other Congress leaders fear that his influence would spread to
the port and dock workers and make him the most powerful union leader in
India's commercial capital. Thus the government took a firm stance of rejecting
Samant's demands, and refusing to budge despite the severe economic losses
suffered by the city and the industry.
As the strike progressed through the months, Samant's militancy in the face of
government obstinacy led to the failure of any attempts at negotiation and
resolution. Disunity, mainly due to Shiv-sena trying to break strike and
dissatisfaction over the strike soon became apparent, and many textile
millowners began moving their plants outside the city. After a prolonged and
destabilizing confrontation, the strike collapsed with Samant and his allies not
having obtained any concessions. The closure of textile mills across the city left
tens of thousands of mill workers unemployed, and in the succeeding years the
most of the industry moved away from Mumbai, after decades of being plagued
by rising costs and union militancy. Mill owners used this opportunity to grab the
precious real estate. Although Samant remained popular with a large block of
union activists, his clout and control over Mumbai trade unions disappeared.

[edit] Later life and murder

Samant was elected on an independent, anti-Congress ticket to the Lok Sabha,

the lower house of the Indian Parliament in 1984; an election that was otherwise
swept by the Congress under Rajiv Gandhi. He would organize the Kamgar
Aghadi union, and the Lal Nishan Party, which brought him close to communism
and Indian communist political parties. He remained active in trade unions and
communist politics throughout India in the 1990s. He became a fierce opponent
of the Shiv Sena and the Bharatiya Janata Party, and remained aloof from the
Congress. At the time of his death he was a not a member of parliament.

On the morning of January 16, 1997 Samant was gunned down and murdered
outside his home in Mumbai by four gunmen, believed to be contract killers, who
fled on motorcycles. His death sparked protests across the city, and a large
procession of union activists gathered at his cremation. On April 10, 2005 police
arrested 3 men and charged them for Samant's murder. On October 30, 2007,
his assassin, a thug working for underworld don Chotta Rajan, was himself
gunned down by police in Kolhapur [1].

Samant's brother, Dada Samant, is a leader of the Maharashtra General Kamgar

Union.

On the morning of January 16 Dr. Datta Samant was gunned down by four
"unidentified assailants" just outside his residence in Mumbai. Samant was about
to leave for his office when the gunmen came approaching in an autorickshaw.
Despite his allegedly "fading fortunes", the legendary trade union leader was still
immensely popular among Mumbai workers and also the most easily accessible.
He mistook his would-be killers as just another group of workers or union
activists, but for once he was greeted not by the familiar warmth of the working
class or by lusty cheers of "Datta Samant zindabad". At work were professional
contract killers from the Mumbai underworld and two days before Samant could
observe the fifteenth anniversary of the historic Bombay textile strike, death
came in the form of a dozen-odd barbaric bullets.
Who could possibly be behind this conspiracy? The barons of real estate and
designers of deindustrialisation for whom Samant was still a "nuisance" for his
dogged opposition to the land sale campaign? Corporate leaders like the Premier
Automobile bosses who had grown tired of Samant's stubborn resistance to their
dreams of rationalisation? Thackeray and his men afraid as they were that
Samant might add a militant working class dimension to the growing popular
concern over rampant corruption under the Sena-BJP rule? Or was it the
handiwork of underworld dons who are out to lumpenise the trade union scene in
Mumbai, dancing to the tunes of the lumpen bourgeoisie's campaign for
economic reforms?

The truth may never be known. But for the scores of thousands of workers who
were marching through Mumbai streets in Samant's funeral procession,
spontaneously raising slogans like Joshi-Munde, aaj ke gunde (Joshi and Munde
are the foremost thugs of today), one thing stood out as clear as daylight. The
enemies of the working class have succeeded in getting rid of a leader who could
still dare to fight for the workers' rights in these dark days of Hong Kongisation of
Mumbai.

This is the other dimension of the great Indian dismantling mission which is
however yet to be seriously addressed by the sundry opponents of liberalisation.
The dismantlers are not only out to destroy whatever structure and notions of
planning, self-reliance and public sector we might have had in this country in the
first four decades of freedom, they are also determined to do a matching and
thorough job of restructuring in the arena of workers' rights and struggles. This is
why laws are being amended and leaders killed. Shankar Guha Niyogi was
assassinated in Bhilai in 1991 and now Samant has been done to death in
Mumbai. Incidentally, these killings have both taken place under BJP rule.

The kind of response that Samant's gruesome assassination has evoked in the
media is also characteristic of our times. Samant was of course never a
sensation in the eyes of the media, which have traditionally shown scant regard
for organised workers' struggles. With some of his recent campaigns ending in
failures, the process of counting him out had already started. The first issue of
India Today this year listed him among the not-so-mighty who had a fall in 1996
breaking his back for keeps. And now after Samant has fallen to the bullets of
contract killers, The Times of India does maintain its "tradition of objectivity" by
carrying an editorial on the slain leader, but revealingly the editorial does not
waste a single word to condemn this killing. It does not even use any stock
expression of mock regret. The attempt is rather to rationalise the whole incident
with the argument that it has served to "underscore the aphorism that violence
only begets more violence". If it questions anything, it is only the "irony that the
murder of Mumbai's militant trade union leader Datta Samant ... should have
occurred at a time when his fortunes were clearly on the wane".
Quite predictably, the editorial lambasts Samant for the marathon textile strike of
1982 which "petered out a year later leaving thousands of workers in the lurch".
In fact, since the strike Samant has been flayed times without number for its
"failure". The systematic destruction of the textile industry by proliferating
powerlooms on the one hand and by a virtually officially sponsored sabotage of
the National Textile Corporation on the other has often been sought to be
explained away as a fallout of the Mumbai textile strike. But the editorial does not
stop here, it goes on to attribute the "downward course" of Samant's union to his
"foray into politics" and accuses him of using "the trade union movement as a
stepping stone to a political career"...

Was the Mumbai textile strike a failure? Did it really hit the proverbial last nail into
the coffin of India's textile industry? As Samant used to point out, the textile strike
was confined to Maharashtra and there was no action of even remotely matching
dimensions in the mills of Ahmedabad, Kanpur or West Bengal; how come then
all over the country today the textile industry is said to be in a state of terminal
crisis? Moreover, how are we to judge the success or failure of a strike in the
longer term? The 1982 textile strike had raised the all important demand of
granting mandatory recognition to the union with majority support and
ascertaining this majority through secret ballot. This is a basic question of
democracy and even though the textile strike could not clinch the issue, today it
has become a key demand of the working class all over the country. It is also a
promise made, though not yet kept, in the common minimum programme.

And most importantly, the 1982 strike gave the textile workers of Mumbai a new
identity and they are still all proud of it. It was a protracted class battle of the
textile worker which received unflinching support from the broad masses of rural
toilers in Maharashtra. Not for nothing did the Mumbai working class extend such
overwhelming support to Samant in the Lok Sabha elections of 1984. At a time
when, riding on the crest of the original sympathy wave, Rajiv Gandhi romped
home with the biggest ever majority ever enjoyed by the Congress; when a party
like BJP finished with a pathetic tally of two parliamentary seats; and CPI(M)
stalwarts fell like ninepins in the bastion of West Bengal, Samant emerged tall
and triumphant, entering Parliament on an independent anti-Congress ticket on
the strength of the proud support of the Mumbai working class.

Samant's was a career marked by successive progressive transitions. Beginning

as a practising physician in a working class colony of Ghatkopar in suburban
Mumbai, it was his close encounter with the trauma of the stone quarry worker
that brought out the trade unionist in him. Samant was no believer in the
sophisticated doctrines of divorce between trade unionism and politics. The
passion for politics grew naturally as he began to grow aware of the organic links
between the economy and polity. But in politics too, Samant kept moving. He first
made it to the Maharashtra Assembly as a Congress MLA, but the Emergency
found him behind bars and after the iron curtain was lifted, Samant was never to
return to the Congress establishment.
The textile strike brought him close to the politics of the Left, and Samant
launched a new organisation called Kamgar Aghadi. Close ties of cooperation
developed with the Lal Nishan Party, with LNP activists not only operating in his
unions but even contesting and winning elections on Kamgar Aghadi tickets.
Reluctant to associate himself with the IPF in the early 80s, during the last ten
years Samant had also overcome much of this earlier inhibition. In 1987, he
shared a platform with Com. Nagbhushan Patnaik in the workers' convention
held by IPF at Ambernath. In September 1995, he addressed the inaugural rally
of the AICCTU's Third National Conference in Patna. And since December 1995,
his Maharashtra Girni Kamgar Union has been waging joint action with AICCTU-
affiliated textile workers' unions in UP, Gujarat and Bihar under the banner of the
Save NTC Action Committee. In the otherwise increasingly bipolar politics of
Maharashtra dominated by the Congress and the BJP-Shiv Sena combine,
Samant was a consistent advocate of a third front building bridges between the
dalit, Left and other secular political streams.

In his own way and language, Samant appreciated the importance of the task of
developing the working class as a distinct political force. He was all praise for the
kind of organisation, class political will, fighting capacity and consciousness he
could see in the poor peasants and agrarian labourers of central Bihar,
something which he said he often missed in the ranks of his union. But perhaps
he had become a prisoner of his own success, it was not possible for him to
break through the confines of his individualist organisation and trade unionist
politics to graduate to the revolutionary communist perspective of worker-peasant
alliance and consistent democracy with a socialist orientation.

Yet with all his limitations and inhibitions, Samant's was unmistakably one of
those rare voices in Indian politics which vibrated with the pulse of the working
class. Perhaps that is why the bankrupt liberal framework, despite its seeming
obsession with labour standards and transparency and accountability in public
life, always exhibited such a pathological lack of appreciation, nay hatred, for
Samant's variety of trade unionism and politics. And it is also precisely why
revolutionary communists will continue to cherish the contribution of working
class democrats like Datta Samant.