This year’s May Day will likely be a subdued affair for the workforce, as the implications of the newly introduced Labour Codes pushed through with significant haste and fanfare begin to sink in. Chennai holds a special place in this history; it was here in 1923 that the first May Day in India was celebrated at Marina Beach. Singaravelu, the pioneering communist leader, hoisted the red flag at a spot now immortalised by the 'Triumph of Labour' statue, unveiled in 1959.
The heritage of the labour movement is etched into the city’s geography, with the Municipal Park at Chintadripet later renamed May Day Park. Notably, it was during the tenure of M Karunanidhi in 1970 that the Tamil Nadu legislature amended holiday laws to declare May 1 a compulsory paid holiday. Interestingly, even though Leftist governments held power in West Bengal, Kerala, and Tripura for decades, those states have yet to make it a statutory paid holiday.
The genesis of May Day is rooted in the 1886 Haymarket Riot in Chicago, where workers protested for an 8-hour workday without pay cuts. The movement was met with brutal police repression, resulting in several fatalities. By 1889, international socialist groups declared May 1 as a global day of celebration for the working class to commemorate the achievement of the 8-hour shift.
US President Grover Cleveland, wary of the day being appropriated by Leftist ideologies, established the first Monday of September as 'Labour Day' five years later. However, the significance of May Day remained undiluted in the East. For millions, it continues to represent the victory of humane working hours and the recognition of workers as human beings, distinct from the machinery they operate.
In India, the foundation for modern labour protections was laid by Dr BR Ambedkar. During his tenure in the Viceroy’s Council and later as Labour Minister, he introduced landmark legislation for health, safety, and welfare. This culminated in the Factories Act of 1948, which mandated an 8-hour day, a 48-hour work week, and one compulsory day off. Any work extracted beyond these limits required employers to pay double the normal wage as overtime.
In 1969, the first National Commission on Labour, headed by Justice Gajendragadkar, observed that the Indian working class was overburdened and recommended reducing the weekly limit to 45 hours. While this was largely ignored by the government, the banking and insurance sectors did eventually adopt shorter work weeks.
The Factories Act also addressed social protections, prohibiting child labour below the age of 14 a principle later enshrined as a fundamental right under Article 24 of the Constitution. Furthermore, aligned with International Labour Organisation (ILO) norms, the Act barred women from night shifts, restricting their employment to the window between 6 am and 7 pm.
However, the era of liberalisation brought these protections under scrutiny. Critics argued that restricting night shifts denied women equal opportunity. In a landmark ruling in 2000 (R Vasantha), the Madras High Court struck down Section 66 of the Factories Act, which prohibited women from working nights. Interestingly, the Union government chose not to appeal this decision.
The High Court, however, balanced this by recommending a package of safeguards for women on night shifts, including the provision of menstrual leave. More recently, the judiciary has taken a different tone. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant (noting the current legal landscape) has expressed concerns that mandating menstrual leave might inadvertently lead to employers discriminating against women to avoid perceived productivity losses.
Under the new Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (OSH) Code, 2020, the Union government has permitted night shifts for women across all sectors, provided their consent is obtained. Yet, gaps remain. While the Social Security Code, 2020, expanded the definition of 'worker' to include domestic help, specific protections for this predominantly female workforce are largely absent, leaving them vulnerable.
The courts have also moved away from 'paternalistic' protections. In 2008, the ban on women bartenders in Delhi was overturned. Similarly, in 2019, the Supreme Court struck down the Maharashtra government’s ban on dance bars, asserting that the state cannot restrict a woman’s right to earn a livelihood under the guise of protection. This shift reflects a broader judicial trend that mirrors the liberalised economy, where even the sale of liquor in grocery stores has been contemplated by the courts.
However, this economic shift has also led to the dilution of hard-won labour rights. Protectionism is increasingly being replaced by a drive for 'productivity'. In 2023, the Tamil Nadu government attempted to amend the Factories Act to allow 12-hour shifts. This was met with a fierce backlash from unions and Left parties, forcing a swift withdrawal.
Despite such retreats, the push for longer hours persists in corporate circles. NR Narayana Murthy of Infosys famously suggested a 70-hour work week, while L&T’s SN Subrahmanyan (and others in leadership) have urged workers to prioritise the shop floor over family life. While the OSH Code, 2020, technically retains the 8-hour day (Section 25) and 6-day week (Section 26), it provides broad powers for the government to grant exemptions.
As we mark 140 years since the Haymarket struggle, the 8-hour workday — once a settled right is once again in flux. The central question for this May Day is whether the workforce can reclaim the fighting spirit of 1886 to prevent the clock from being turned back.
Thulasi is Advocate, Madras High Court