Unfinished May Day:
Rights, Resistance, Reality
-Bruhaspati Samal-
The images from Noida in April 2026 are not isolated flashes of unrest; they are the visible eruption of a deep and expanding faultline in India’s labour landscape. Thousands of workers stepping out of factories and onto the streets, demanding fair wages, humane working conditions, and dignity, have drawn national attention. Reports indicate that more than 40,000 workers mobilised across industrial clusters, while large-scale detentions and clashes revealed the intensity of accumulated distress. What unfolded in Noida was not sudden. It was the result of years of silent endurance—of delayed payments, excessive working hours, unsafe conditions, and a relentless rise in living costs that has steadily eroded real wages. The economic pressure behind such protests is measurable and severe. Between 2021 and 2026, the Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers (CPI-IW) rose by nearly 25%, while wage growth in many sectors remained stagnant or marginal. This widening gap between income and expenditure has pushed workers into a condition where employment no longer guarantees survival. The concept of “hidden inflation” has further intensified this crisis, as essential expenses—food, housing, transport, education, and healthcare—rise faster than official wage revisions. For millions of workers, particularly those in informal and contractual employment, savings are negligible. A delay in wages or a slight increase in costs can push entire families into debt.
The Noida unrest is not an isolated case. Across India, labour tensions are intensifying. In early 2026 (12 February 2026), an estimated 300 million workers and farmers participated in a nationwide strike across more than 600 districts, making it one of the largest coordinated labour actions in the world. This unprecedented mobilisation signals a structural crisis rather than sporadic dissatisfaction. It reflects a growing anxiety among workers that the current trajectory of economic reform is leaving them behind. This anxiety becomes clearer when placed against the structure of India’s workforce. Nearly 90% of India’s workforce is employed in the informal sector, lacking formal contracts, job security, and social protection. Historically, only about 18–20% of workers have had access to any form of social security, whether provident fund, pension, or health insurance. Even within the formal sector, the rise of contractualisation has been dramatic. In several manufacturing industries, contract workers constitute nearly 40–50% of the workforce, often receiving significantly lower wages and fewer benefits than permanent employees performing the same tasks. This dual structure has created a deeply unequal labour ecosystem.
It is within this fragile and unequal context that the four Labour Codes have been introduced and are being implemented. These Codes—the Code on Wages, 2019, the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, the Code on Social Security, 2020, and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020—have consolidated 29 existing central labour laws into four comprehensive frameworks. The stated aim is to simplify compliance, promote ease of doing business, and extend social security to all workers, including those in the gig and platform economy. The Code on Wages, 2019 seeks to universalise minimum wages and ensure timely payment across all sectors, covering both organised and unorganised workers. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 governs trade unions, conditions of employment, and dispute resolution mechanisms, while also increasing the threshold for prior government approval for layoffs and retrenchment from 100 to 300 workers. The Code on Social Security, 2020 aims to extend benefits such as provident fund, insurance, and maternity benefits to a broader workforce, including gig workers, a segment expected to grow from around 10 million at present to nearly 23.5 million by 2030. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 consolidates laws related to workplace safety, working hours, and welfare provisions.
On paper, these reforms appear comprehensive and progressive. However, the resistance from workers arises not merely from the content of these laws, but from the deeper philosophical shift they represent. The earlier labour framework in India was rooted in the idea of a welfare state, where laws functioned as protective shields for workers against exploitation. The new Codes, in contrast, reflect a movement towards a market-oriented approach, where flexibility, efficiency, and ease of compliance are prioritised. This shift has raised fundamental concerns. The increase in the threshold for layoffs to 300 workers effectively allows a larger number of firms to retrench employees without prior government approval, thereby reducing job security. The expansion of fixed-term employment enables employers to hire workers for short durations without long-term obligations, increasing flexibility but also uncertainty. While such measures may improve the ease of doing business, they also institutionalise precarious employment.
The promise of expanded social security, particularly for informal and gig workers, is significant but remains uncertain in practice. When nearly 90% of the workforce operates outside formal systems, the success of such provisions depends entirely on implementation. Questions remain about registration processes, contribution mechanisms, and enforcement capacity. Without strong institutional support, legal inclusion may not translate into real benefits. Another major concern is the weakening of collective bargaining power. Historically, labour rights in India have been secured through trade unions and collective action. However, the evolving structure of employment, combined with regulatory changes, has fragmented the workforce. Stricter conditions for strikes and union recognition, along with the rise of contract and gig work, have made collective organisation more difficult. This leaves workers negotiating individually in a system structurally tilted in favour of employers.
The economic rationale behind the Labour Codes is not without merit. India seeks to attract investment, enhance industrial competitiveness, and integrate with global supply chains. Labour flexibility is often seen as a necessary condition for achieving these goals. However, the experience of economies across the world suggests that sustainable growth cannot be built on insecure labour. Productivity and innovation thrive in environments where workers feel secure, valued, and protected.
The protests seen in Noida and across the country must therefore be understood not as opposition to reform, but as resistance to imbalance. Workers are not rejecting change; they are demanding that change be just, inclusive, and humane. They are asserting that economic growth must not come at the cost of dignity and security. May Day stands as a powerful reminder of this historical truth. The rights workers enjoy today—the eight-hour workday, minimum wages, social security—were not granted easily. They were achieved through struggles that demanded recognition of labour as a human right, not merely an economic input. The current wave of protests is a continuation of that legacy. As the nation observes May Day, the message emerging from the working class is both urgent and profound. A country that aspires to be a global economic power cannot ignore the condition of those who sustain its growth. Reforms must not weaken the very foundation they seek to strengthen.
To the Government, the call is clear. Policy must balance economic efficiency with social justice. Implementation mechanisms must be strengthened to ensure that every worker, especially in the informal sector, benefits from legal protections. Dialogue with trade unions and labour representatives must be genuine and continuous. To employers, the lesson is equally important. Workers are not expendable resources but essential partners in production. Fair wages, job security, and safe working conditions are not costs but investments in stability and productivity. To society at large, there is a moral responsibility to recognise that every aspect of modern life is built on labour. Ignoring the struggles of workers is not neutrality; it is complicity.
The events in Noida are not an end—they are a beginning. They reflect a growing consciousness among workers that their dignity cannot be compromised. As long as inequality persists, as long as insecurity defines employment, and as long as labour is treated as a disposable commodity, the spirit of May Day will continue to rise. Because, when workers rise, they do not merely demand higher wages. They demand justice, dignity, and their rightful share in the nation’s progress. And that demand, rooted in both history and humanity, cannot be silenced.
(The author is a Service Union Representative and a Columnist, presently working as the General Secretary, Confederation of Central Govt Employees and Workers and President, Forum of Civil Pensioners' Association / National Coordination Committee of Pensioners' Association, Odisha State Committee)
*****
