CETRI
Responding to the call of a joint platform of ten central trade unions and independent sectoral federations, workers across India observed a general strike on February 12, 2026. The strike, called to resist the four labour codes and other policies the unions describe as anti-worker and pro-corporate, also served as a pointed rejection of Chief Justice Surya Kant’s recent claim that trade unions were “largely responsible” for slowing down industrial growth in the country. Workers came out in their thousands in hundreds of locations, demanding policies for more equitable distribution of the wealth created by their labour.
The joint platform highlighted four demands : scrapping the four labour codes, repealing the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act and restoring MGNREGA, withdrawing the Electricity Amendment Bill and the Seeds Bill, and addressing longstanding issues related to minimum wages, privatisation, contractorisation, and pensions.
The BJP-led NDA government has notified four labour codes which are meant to curtail the right to organise and the right to collective action, including the right to strike. The strike call received support from the Samyukta Kisan Morcha, the joint platform of agricultural workers’ unions, and organisations of women, students, and youth.
The CJI’s remarks
On January 29, 2026, while hearing a PIL petition filed by Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam, a domestic workers’ union, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) made oral observations in court. According to reports, he held trade unions responsible for slowing growth, discouraging investment, and hindering industrial expansion. He attributed the closure of traditional industries across the country to “aggressive protests by jhanda unions”. He also suggested that minimum wages could discourage hiring and hamper employment generation, and that imposing minimum wages for domestic workers could reduce demand and make household help unaffordable for middle-class families.
Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution guarantees the right to form associations or unions as a fundamental right. The Trade Union Act, 1926, provides for registration, collective bargaining, and legal immunity for union activities. The CJI, as custodian of the Constitution, is unlikely to be unaware of these provisions.
The claim that “jhanda unions” are responsible for industrial closures has no factual basis. Reports from the Labour Bureau on industrial disputes, closures, retrenchments, and lay-offs show a drastic decline in disputes. The average annual number of industrial disputes during 2006-14 was 354. This fell to an annual average of 76 during 2015-23. By September 2023, only 30 industrial disputes had been reported—a 17-year low. Man-days lost due to strikes and lockouts fell from 203 lakh in 2006 to 3.4 lakh in 2023.
Industrial closures, meanwhile, occur more frequently where the trade union movement is weak or minimal. In a written response in the Lok Sabha, Harsh Malhotra, Minister of State for Corporate Affairs, informed Parliament that 2,04,268 private companies closed between 2020-21 and 2024-25 due to amalgamation, conversion, dissolution, or being struck off under the Companies Act, 2013. The government did not attribute these closures to trade union activity or industrial disputes. Industrial closures often result from mismanagement, changing market conditions, diversion of capital, and speculative practices. MSMEs in particular have faced difficulties since demonetisation and the introduction of GST, with thousands of small and medium enterprises closing. Data from the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India shows that large corporate failures and poor debt recovery—not labour disputes—are central to India’s industrial crisis.
When industries close, it is the workers who lose their jobs and incomes. Workers and trade unions that represent their interests naturally want industries to run and provide decent employment. It is untenable that they would want industries to close. At the same time, workers cannot be expected to suffer silently when employers attack their wages and working conditions, especially with the State acting as a facilitator of such attacks through neoliberal policies.
The suggestion that minimum wages discourage employment cannot be accepted. Minimum wages are not charity but a right, in line with the constitutional mandate to ensure dignity of labour and the right to livelihood. The Supreme Court itself has affirmed that non-payment of minimum wages amounts to “forced labour”. Several States have notified minimum wages for domestic workers, and this has not resulted in any collapse of employment.
The CJI’s reported comments echo a tendency among advocates of neoliberal policies—policies that are now widely acknowledged as failures. Trade unions are maligned and sought to be eliminated from workplaces because they not only fight for the protection of workers’ rights but also expose the exploitation of national wealth, including natural resources, facilitated by the neoliberal state.
Keep reading in Frontline :
