Development of Tu Movement in Tea Plantatons

CHAPTER IV
DEVELOPMENT OF TU MOVEMENT IN TEA

PLANTATONS
Chapter 4 Development of TU Movement in Tea Plantatons
CHAPTER IV
DEVELOPMENT OF TU MOVEMENT IN TEA PLANTATONS
Writing a comprehensive history of Trade Union (TU) Movement in Kerala,

especially of a period prior to 1947, is a tedious task due to the lack of documentary
and archival source materials. Moreover TUs in the state make no effort in
preserving their history (Nair 2006). These issues are more serious in plantations
owing to the peculiar features of an enclave economy. TUs in Kerala are known for
their close links with social and political history of the State. Hence, the
documentation of TU Movement, in isolation from the socio-political history, is not
fruitful. By and large, TU leaders are political party leaders and social activists. The
social renaissance that took place in the state during the 19th and 20th centuries led to
a political awakening as the socially oppressed became aware of their rights (Menon
1997, p. 55).
There have not been notable and specific academic works on TUs in
plantations of Kerala. Ramachandran Nair made a commendable attempt to
document the objective history of TUs in the plantation sector of Kerala based on
facts from available published works like souvenirs, reports, articles in periodicals,
and oral reminiscences of veteran TU leaders (Nair 2006).
4.1. Development of TU Movement in Kerala
The vigour seen among the workers at the all India level reflected in Malabar
regions of Madras Presidency of British India, and Princely States including
Travancore and Cochin. The history of TU movement in Kerala is inseparably
interconnected with social and political history. The social reform movements,
which took place in the state in 19th and 20th centuries, caused substantial
transformation in the social structure and change in attitudes. Moreover, the
traditional social structures and values were questioned and challenged by new
social forces opened up by growing capitalism. The people became increasingly
aware of their rights and began to acquire political consciousness also.
The abolition of slavery in Thiruvithamcore in 1855, the establishment of

system of money wage and the freedom of contract marked the first stage in the
89
improvement in the condition of work and wage. The passing of the Factory Act in
1913 and further benefits to labour, the social reformation movements, the miseries
of the labour due to poverty and unemployment during the first quarter of the 20th
century and further deterioration of the condition of labour owing to economic
depression of 1930s were the other major factors which developed the background
for the emergence of organized TU Movement in Travancore.
The major centres of earliest TU Movement in Travancore were Alappuzha

and Kollam. The attempts at organizing labour in the coir and matting industry in
Alappuzha in the 1920s is considered as the origin of the TU Movement in Kerala.
The first TU in Kerala, the Travancore Labour Association (TLA) was established in
1922 for the workers in the cob-weaving industry in Alappuzha. The union, started
with 300 workers of the Empire Coir Works, Alappuzha. Initially the movement
concerned itself with social welfare activities rather than economic conditions of
workers. Employers were not seen as antagonists but as friends. Then the movement
began to take up economic issues and gradually the group of workers was won over
by the radical political platform of Congress Socialist party (Issac1985). It was the
first union registered under the Travancore Trade Union Act, 1937. On registration it
was renamed as the ‘Travancore Coir Factory Workers’ union (TCFWU). TU
movement in Travancore, initially confined to the coir factory workers in
Alappuzha, soon spread and extended to various parts of the state.
The major activities of TU movement in the initial stage focused attention to

the vulnerabilities of workers. The movement raised those issues before the
authorities through written applications, submitting petitions and memorandums,
conducted meetings, and passed resolutions. The nature and class of former office
bearers limited the scope of the activities of the TLA. The first president of the
union was Dr. Antony, the owner of Indian Coir Works, Alappuzha. Lawyers,
community organization-workers, contractors, salaried persons in companies etc.
became, by and large, the office bearers of the union. They were the mediators in the
capital–labour conflicts. They submitted petitions and memorandums before the
employers and authorities, but could not organize workers and lead the struggles
effectively to the next level (Andalat 1989, pp. 89–99).
90
A few words from the welcome speech done by P.S. Muhammed, the
President of the union, at the annual meeting in 1932 reflects the limitation of then
TU Movement in Kerala: ‘You should have devotion and affection to your
employers. You have to think always that the prosperity of employers means the
prosperity of yourselves also. The capitalists and workers have to live harmoniously
as body and soul or milk and water. The reason for the lack of peaceful atmosphere
in society is the absence of this harmonising spirit in both the parties’ (ibid, p. 102).
There were only five or six TUs in Kerala before 1934. The number
increased to 16 by 1935. The working class in Kerala became organized as a class
with the first All Kerala Labour conference held in 1935 at Kozhikode. The meeting
was organized by the Congress Socialist Party (CSP), the Left wing of freedom
movement, under the leadership of P. Krishna Pillai. The meeting, a landmark in the
history of TU Movement in Kerala, aimed at the formulation of a labour
organization for the entire working class in Kerala, and called for the launching of
union activities wherever TUs were absent. The conference passed resolutions
regarding working time and job security, and it demanded proper legislation. The
meeting asked the workers to take the leadership of freedom struggle and declared
that complete freedom should be the aim of freedom movement (Prakasam 1979, pp.
72–73).
4.2 Initial Stages of Labour Movement in Tea Plantations
The history of labour struggles in tea plantations in India has moved through
several distinct stages, from the sporadic and spontaneous outbursts to a mature and
well-organized TU Movement. Along with the development of plantations, the
miseries and pauperization of workers increased. A well-planned, cruel and
systematic mode of punishment was practised in plantations to ensure discipline
among workers and extraction of maximum surplus. In addition to the maintenance
of private army, the planters were assisted by the state machinery including police,
and the introduction of anti-labour legislations accelerated the vulnerabilities of
workers.
The absence of direct and open confrontations with management in early

stage did not mean that plantation workers submitted to the autocratic and arbitrary
91
rule of planters without a resistance. In fact they resorted to what some have called
‘every day forms of resistance’ (White 1986, pp. 49–63). The features of these
spontaneous and clandestine actions varied in time and place, but the common
thread was that they were largely defensive acts, demanding little or no co-
operation, and not challenging capitalist power and authority per se, but aiming at
altering the rules of the game in workers’ favour to ensure their individual survival.
These desperate acts were truly the ‘weapons of the weak’. The initial forms of
workers’ resistance were individualized acts of sabotage of company property, self-
injury and desertion. Planters categorized these acts as criminal offences punishable
by heavy fines, hard labour, physical torture etc.
The scale of desertion was the most unambiguous sign of the overall troubled
state of mind of plantation workers all over the world. In 1921, around 8000 workers
of tea plantations in Assam left their workplace, determined to return to their native
villages and many died from cholera and starvation. The management tried their best
to bring them back by promising better wages, but they preferred to go back to their
native place. Another group, consisting of 3000 workers was blocked by authorities
at Chandpur railway station. All the efforts of planters to bring them back failed and
the disappointed authority retaliated brutally. The sleeping group of workers,
consisting of men, women and children were attacked by armed police with
bayonets on the night of 20 May. Some of them were thrown into the river and died
(Sen 2005, p. 90).
The planters termed desertion, the commonest forms of protests in the early
stages of plantations, as ‘absconding’ and deserters were punished. Desertion
became rampant in the plantations of South India in the early 20th century due to the
ill-treatment of the workers by planters, poor rationing and harsh weather in the hills
(Raviraman 2002, p.30). But once caught by management or police, they were
driven back to the estates or jail and the punishment would be severe.
When the attempts to run away failed, workers began to respond to the ill-
treatment suffered from supervisory staff through other measures like self-
immolation, petty theft, sabotage etc. These modes of protests were taken by the
police as criminal acts and workers were treated brutally.
92
The intensity of exploitation increased the profit in tea industry up to 450 per
cent, though the wage rate remained low. The recession followed by the First World
War and consequent rise in prices, particularly those of food stuffs and cloth, led to a
widespread discontent among workers. Price of food grains in India went up by
more than 90 per cent whereas in plantations it was 102 per cent. Tea workers began
to boycott the markets run by planters, resulting in riots, strikes and desertion.
Workers of Dumdum estate in Assam boycotted work against the distribution of
expired rice. Workers in Annamalai estate in South India boycotted work due to a rise
in the price of food materials. (Raviraman 2002, pp. 30–31; Sen 2005, pp. 86–90).
Anilkumar has portrayed the experiences of a dalit worker during the initial
stage of tea plantation in the Peermade region (2009). Yiramyav was born in 1896
near Kottayam, as the son of a pulaya couple. The ill-treatment of upper castes and
poverty forced his father to hand over the son at the age of 12 to a Kankany of
Cheenthalar Estate in Peermade by receiving 4 Chakram as advance wage. Then the
Kankany brought the boy to the estate, located more than 100 km from the native
place. Yiramyav spent 14 years in the estate. Long hours of hard work in estate
starting from 5 A M, ill-treatment on the part of Kankanies and management staff,
unhealthy climate and the fear of epidemics like plague, malaria etc. increased his
weariness. He was physically and mentally exhausted and wished to go back to his
native place. In spite of the awareness of probable brutal treatment on the part of
Kankany and management to absconding workers, Yiramyav escaped to his home.
His total saving, out of 14 years of work in plantation, was not sufficient to meet
even the expenses of return trip. It aggravated the miseries of the return journey.
These actions taken by the workers were a weapon of a different magnitude.

Work stoppage, representing a frontal attack on the control of capital, petty theft and
sabotage offered unambiguous testimony to the existence of a distinctive working
class consciousness, which came to understand the exploitative nature of capitalism.
Though the planters blamed the non-cooperation movement in 1920–1921 for the
rampant desertion, some government agencies were forced to admit that basic
reasons behind running away of workers were poverty and ill-treatment. Assam
Labour Enquiry Committee 1921, though unwillingly, admitted the fact (Sen 2005,
pp. 91–92). These scattered and unorganized movements or ‘every day forms of
93
resistance’ and their experiences, later, paved the way for the emergence of
organized TU movements. Some incidences in early stages of plantations in the
study area, reflecting ‘every day forms of resistance’ of workers are discussed under
the section ‘Class Consciousness’ in chapter 8 of the study.
During the end of the 19th century, colonial dominance was one of the
reasons behind the regional imbalance in development. These variations were also
visible in the development of National Freedom Movement. Bengal, Maharashtra
and some areas of Madras were more developed than other parts of the nation.
Calcutta, Bombay and Madras were major centres of socio-political activities.
National movements in these regions, especially in Bengal and Maharashtra, greatly
influenced the movement in the nation as a whole. These political developments
provided the base to the working class in raising their demands for economic
benefits to a higher level (ibid, pp. 117–118).
The First World War made the life of working class miserable. War expenses
and other governmental expenses doubled, inflation became unbearable and
exploitation of working class increased. The economic strikes of workers that were
seen in various parts of the nation were not completely free from political
inspirations (ibid, pp. 163–164).
Though Bengal and Maharashtra were more politically developed regions,

the first TU in India, Madras Labour Union, was formed in 1918 in Madras State. It
was established by B.P.Wadia, a follower of Home Rule Movement of Annie
Besant. In 1920 there were 125 unions with 2.5 lakhs members in India (ibid, p.
201). Organized demands for higher wages met with opposition from employers and
strikes became inevitable. TUs in those days were working as strike committees.
The first central TU in India, All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) was formed
in October 1920 at Bombay under the initiative of leaders of the National
Movement. The Indian Trade Union Act was passed in 1926 and TUs, which were
registered, could, to some extent, engage in legitimate TU activity as laid down in
the law.
94
4.3. Development of TU Movement in Tea Plantations
As per the directive of the first All Kerala Labour conference, new TUs were
organized in various parts of Kerala. The formation of AITUC, the first central TU
in India, was an inspiration for organizing labour movement in various places. The
second All Kerala Labour Conference held in 1937 at Thrissur asked labour
organizations in Kerala to join AITUC. A major decision taken in the meeting was
the appointment of a committee to study the conditions of workers in plantations and
prepare a report.
Subsequently in 1938 a meeting was convened at Mundakayam and later, at

Ponkunnam and Ranni, and it discussed in detail the problems faced by plantation
workers. The Third all Kerala Labour Conference was held at Cherthala in February
1939. Subsequently, TU activities spread over various parts and in diverse centres of
production activities in Travancore state. In order to co-ordinate various TUs in
Travancore, All Travancore Trade Union Conference was held at Alappuzha in June
1939 and the meeting formulated an organizing committee for the same purpose. In
December 1939, the Kerala unit of CSP became the state unit of the Communist
Party.
Consequent to the above developments and under the initiation of the

Communist Party, TU activities in plantations of Travancore started by 1940
through the formulation of All Thiruvithancore Estate workers union (ATEWU)
(Andalat 1989; Prakasam 1979). Isolated estates far from native places of workers,
fearful working conditions, ignorance and lack of education, the absolute control of
planters over the entire life of workers, the difficulties in interacting with political
and TU leaders outside the estates were the reasons for the late emergence of TUs in
plantations of Kerala, as in other parts of India.
The ATEWU formed 11 branches from Kulasekharam in the south to

Vandiperiyar in the Central Travancore. T. V. Thomas, P Solomon, P. Ramalingom,
C.O.Mathew and P.S. Spencer were the earliest office bearers of the union, and
Punalur was the working centre. In 1942, the union was reconstituted by electing P.
Solomon as the general secretary.
95
In spite of the unfavourable conditions that prevailed in estates and planned

resistance on the part of planters, the leaders were able to organize plantation
workers in Punalur, Pathanapuram, Adoor, Kunnathur, Pathanamthitta,
Mundakayam and Peermade regions, and organized agitations for hike in wage.
Consequently, the wage increased from 8 annas to 12 annas. It was the first
achievement of TU movement in plantations in Travancore. By 1946, the role of
union became significant and it began to attend the tripartite meetings convened by
the government to discuss the problems of plantation workers (Prakasam 1979,
pp.181–182).
The Punnapra-Vayalar Movement in 1946 was a landmark in the history of

TU Movement in Kerala. The Struggle, which started as workers’ movement in
Alappuzha, later became part of a wider struggle for freedom and responsible
government. The Dewan of Travancore state imposed ban on Communist Party and
the party-linked TUs including ATEWU. After Independence the above ban was
lifted and the union began to function legitimately. However, in 1948 as part of the
state action against communist movement and its associated organizations, the
leaders of the union were arrested. In 1949 the union, affiliated to AITUC, was
banned and the ban was lifted only in 1952. The activities of similar unions in
plantations in Malabar also slowed down due to the arrest of leaders. During this
period, unions under the leadership of INTUC came into existence.
The Administrative Report of Travancore–Cochin for the year 1949–1950

stated that the activities in plantations, compared to other sectors, continued to be
weak and there could not be seen a single sufficiently well-organized union. (TCAR
1950). Nevertheless, the entry of INTUC in the early 1950s and the lifting of ban on
AITUC in 1952 accelerated the labour movements in plantations. The
Administrative Report for 1953–1954 had to state that ‘the labour classes
increasingly recognized the advantage of organizing themselves into trade unions’
(TCAR 1954, p. 203).
The important leaders of INTUC in tea plantations of Wayanad in the initial

stages were C.K. Govindan Nair, A.V. Radha Gopi Menon, Narayana Kurup, T.M.
Raghavan and P.K. Gopalan whereas K. Karunakaran, B.K. Nair, R. Kuppuswamy
96
and N. Ganapathy led the earliest activities of INTUC in plantations in Travancore-

Cochin1 state.
In the next few years, the labour movements in plantations were controlled
by the AITUC and INTUC led unions. In the later years of 1950s, UTUC (United
Trade Union Congress) a central TU linked to RSP (Revolutionary Socialist Party),
a left party, made its entry into plantations. In spite of the strength gained by TUs,
the living conditions of the workers remained deplorable in 1950s.
4.4. Planters’ Organizations and Anti-labour Union Strategies
While the workers remained unorganized for decades, the planters have
always been well organized and powerful, both economically and politically (Rege
1950, p. 201). In 1857 the British merchants and trading houses started Cochin
Chamber of Commerce. Foreign companies namely Aspinwall, Piercelesley, Volcart
Brothers, William Goodacre, Pyari & Company, Madura Company, Harrison &
Crossfield and some indigenous enterprises like A. V. Thomas and Company were
the initial members of the Chamber of Commerce. As discussed in Chapter 2, most
of the plantations in Kerala came under the ownership of these companies.
The first planters’ organization in south India, the Waynadu Planters

Association came into existence in 1857 itself. In 1888 Kannan Devan Planters,
Association was established. In 1893, United Planters Association of South India
(UPASI) was founded at Bangalore. The planters in Peermade–Vandiperiyar regions
formed in 1874 their own organisation named the Peermade Planters Association.
Later, it was renamed in 1894 as Central Travancore Planters Association
(CTPA).The formulation of these organizations helped the planters to develop
planned and comprehensive ways to resist the labour movement and to jointly exert
pressure on governments and authorities to safeguard their interests.
The planters were aware of the threat of rising labour movements. During the
emergence of TUs, planters opined that TUs were unnecessary and union activities
among illiterate labour would do more harm than good. They even claimed that ‘we
are quite willing to develop on welfare lines without legislation’ (Baak 1997). In
1
Thiru-–Cochi is the Malayalam term used interchangeably with Travancore–Cochin.
97
1937, a representative of planters informed the Travancore Sri Chitra State council
that he could represent the labour also and there was no need of a separate
representative of workers. He stated ‘sir, after working for nearly thirty years among
labourers, I know the inside of their minds very well’ (TSCSC 1937).
The planters feared the Communist Movement. Even before the formation of
the unit of Communist Party in Kerala and the launching of related radical TU
movements, the planters were cautious of such a probable challenge. Speaking at the
42nd Annual General Meeting of the UPASI in1935, F.E. James, representative of
planters in the Central Legislature, reminded participants: ‘It is essential that we
should now concentrate more fully on certain outstanding problems which are now
emerging and which affect our community as well as India generally…In the first
place, there is the emergence of radical movements such as communism’ (Ravi
Raman, 2010. p.139).
Having recognized the reality of evolution of TUs, both indigenous and

foreign planters considered the application of repressive measures as the most
effective instrument to resist the rise of labour movement throughout the 1940s and
1950s. The planters’ organizations laid down strict rules and regulations, forbidding
union members from TU activities within estates and insisted on peaceful and
disciplined union activities. TUs in plantations were initially organized and led by
educated outsiders awakened by national movement and Left movements. Planters
did their best to prevent them, especially Left activists, from entering the estates and
interacting with workers.
The illiteracy of workers and isolated nature of plantations were

unfavourable to TU activities. Moreover, the period of labour contract in those times
was nine to ten months, and after that period the workers could go to their native
places. The contract period was too short to build up a feeling of fraternity required
for trade unionism. Having realised the inability of the workers to organize union on
their own, the planters cunningly tried their best to resist outside leaders from
entering estates.
The planters affirmed that they would not tolerate the outsiders to lead the
workers. The Rege Committee observed: ‘If the workers in plantations are left to
98
their own devices in the matter of organisation, not for another fifty years, can we
see a trade union coming up. Perhaps, it is this confidence that is at the root of the
planters insisting on the preclusion of outsiders’ (1950, p.184). The Royal
Commission on Labour also identified difficulties faced by outside TU leaders and
termed the strategy adopted by planters as short sighted and unwise (RCL 1931).
The Rege Committee stated that there were instances, wherein the outside
TU leaders were severely manhandled at the instigation of Managers of various
estates. Hence, the workers had to fight for the right of registered TUs to depute
outsiders and to include them in the execution committee. Even an established trade
unionist and leader of national movement V.V.Giri was prevented by management
from entering the estates in Annamalais. Later when he became the Labour Minister
with the Government of India, he visited estates in Wayanad in 1952. The planters
tried their best to influence the Governor and Chief Minister of the State of Tamil
Nadu to avoid his visit to the estates (Nair 2006, p. 524). The workers, who dared to
see the minister and shared their grievances, were dismissed by the Manager the
next day itself (Sivaraman 2013, p. 257).
In another incident in 1940, ATEWU was conducting a meeting of workers

in Karumalis estate and Travancore estate of H&C Company in Kollam. Leaders
from outside were to speak at the meeting. The goondas of the management reached
there to derange the meeting. As a few militant workers were ready to retaliate and
they had to withdraw (Nair 2006), p. 535).
One of the early leaders of AITUC in Mundakayam stated that even top TU
leaders had to seek prior permission to enter the estates. Sometimes the leaders
entered the estates by jumping over the gate and met the workers. In 1951 having
refused permission to enter the Meloram estate in Central Travancore, Rosamma
Punnoose and other TU leaders broke the lock of the entry gate and entered the
estate, leading to a police case (Kurian 2008). Rosamma Punnoose herself faced
another similar incident in an estate of Malayalam Plantations Company in
Peermade. After attending a meeting of workers, she was proceeding to the exit. As
per the order of the Manager, the gate was locked to prevent her from leaving the
99
estate. On a complaint lodged by her, through a worker, police came and a case was
charged against the Manager for unlawful confinement (Nair 2006, p.539).
The isolation of labour was instrumental in keeping the workers illiterate,

which in turn, helped to reduce the influence of progressive ideologies and
movements. For example, the literacy level of population of High Range Division,
an area inhabited mainly by plantation labour in 1931 was only 12 per cent whereas
that of the Travancore State as a whole was 29 per cent (Census 1931).Thus the
nationalist and labour movements were unknown in the plantations for a long time.
Hence, a European planter in Kannan Devan Hills opined that Quit India Movement
did not affect plantations in any way. He continued, ‘Our isolation was our strategic
asset’. Another planter consoled himself that the emergence of TUs in estates in the
later years of British Raj did not make notable impacts ( Baak 1997, p.207).
Managements tried their level best to avoid any attempts on the part of
workers or staff to come into contact with progressive thoughts. The children of
Indian staff in Kannan Devan Hills once visited a meeting organized around
Gandhiji. They were punished severely and expelled from the Munnar High School,
controlled by James Finlay and Company (TSCSC 1936).
In the post-Independence era, the planters became cautious of the political

developments-international, national and regional—that would adversely affect their
interests. The coming to power of Social Democratic parties in Western European
countries including Great Britain, the defeat of colonialism, the emergence of
Communist Party led Soviet Union as an alternative to capitalist system and the
communist movement in China were disturbing developments to planters here, as to
capitalists all over the world. Government of India too introduced regulations and
control over plantations. Moreover the Industrial Policy announced in 1948 had a
clause about nationalization.
The growing influence of Leftist movements and related labour movements,

the commitment of communist leaders for nationalization of plantations and land
reforms, and the formation of the first democratically elected communist
government increased the planters’ fear of future course of events. The words of the
then President of the Mundakayam Planters’ Association reflects their anxiety, in
100
this respect: ‘During the year, the communist government has come in to power in
Kerala and we are all awaiting the future trend of events. It is too early as yet to
express any opinions, but from statements made by the various ministers, it would
appear that the planting industry is in for a very thin time, with their threats of
increased taxes, labour wages etc. and it behoves us all to follow the situation very
carefully, and to voice our protest, where necessary, through the proper channels’
(MPA 1957).
The planters lobby, powerful at the national level, successfully mobilized the
press, the ruling Congress party at the centre and other central authorities, and
defeated the efforts for nationalization of plantations and land reforms in Kerala
(Baak 1997).
The emergence of TUs in plantations did not prevent planters from the
process of proceeding with the consolidation of its strength as a ruling force. The
UPASI issued instruction to member planters to deal with labour issues by getting in
touch with concerned District Planters Associations rather than dealing
independently. In order to pacify and thereby retard the intensity of labour
movements, UPASI tactically formulated welfare committees in some estates
(Raviraman 2010, p.140).
Soon planters could recognize that these welfare measures and the strategies
of keeping activists outside were insufficient to prevent the rising tide of labour
movement. They adopted some more tactics like ill-treatment of TU activists,
employment of goondas and dependence on police action against TU workers. In the
late 1940s and the early 1950s, even staff members in various estates in Travancore
region became the victims of the ill-treatment of managements, and some were
transferred for their active participation in staff union, the Estate Staff Union of
south India (ESUSI).
In 1955, the Manager of Merchiston Estate in south Travancore hired

miscreants to stone those present in a meeting organized by the Travancore–Cochin
Estate workers Union. Earlier, after the transfer of ownership of the estate to Birlas,
the management had brought goondas from Tamil Nadu to break up union activities.
In 1955, as per the request of the planter, the police arrested Nelliyampathy
101
Plantation Workers Union secretary Xaviour and some other union workers, and
brutally assaulted them in the lock up. Then the Police terrorized the workers’
families in the estate (Baak 1997, pp. 234–235).
In the post-Independence period, native planters, especially Christian

planting elite replaced British planters as the influential representatives of the South
West Indian planting industry. They became the key office bearers of several
planters’ organizations. This new elite planting community was able to influence
both the state and central governments. They tactically utilized this advantage to
resist TU activities and always took an unfriendly approach to TU workers. They
were able to influence the police, local authorities and some political leaders.
A.P. Ninan, owner of an estate in Achankovil in Kollam district, never

allowed labour union activities. Any attempts to start a union were brutally resisted.
The planter’s henchmen once killed a TU activist, Muthuswamy. Then CITU
decided to form a union under the leadership of Lalaji Babu. Ninan threatened Lalaji
that he would kill him. At last, a situation developed where the planter could not run
the estate without permitting union activities and he sold the estate. The owner of
Thenginad estate in the same district, Thekkeveettil George, was an influential
member of planters’ organizations. He used to employ goondas against TU activists
and workers. At last, some of the victims were forced to join the Left extremist
movement (Nair 2006, pp.552–553).
4.5. Initial Stages of TU Movement in the Study Area
In the nation as a whole, the deplorable condition of newly born working

class invited the attention of some humanists and social workers. Though not aware
of the scientific modes of agitation, as part of social service and due to the sympathy
to workers, they tried to bring the vulnerabilities of workers to the attention of
authorities and public. Some of these activities were meant for raising the spiritual
and moral conscience of workers. For example, Brahmasamajam in Calcutta
established Working Mens Mission in 1878. The early activities of TLA, the first
TU in Kerala, followed the same pattern.
The first attempt to organize plantation workers in Central Travancore, the

study area, was made by George Kakkanadan, a communist fellow traveller, whose
102
family house in plains had contacts with some communist leaders of Travancore
state. In early 1930s, he formed the union, The Sanmargodaya Coolivela Sanghom2,
for plantation workers around Mundakayam (Prakasam1979). There is no evidence
showing that the union was either registered as a TU or developed as a notable
labour movement. However, this collectivity of workers might have inspired TLA
and Left activists to opt for Mundakayam as the centre for convening a meeting for
plantation workers in the state for the first time.
In 1948 INTUC was formulated in India by splitting the first central TU,
AITUC. In the post-Independence period some eminent leaders of Indian National
Congress (INC) concentrated on TU activities by resisting Left TUs and organizing
workers separately under its banner. Since AITUC and UTUC were facing
repressive measures of the state during the ban period, INTUC became a resort to
the workers, to some extent, for materializing the welfare measures incorporated in
new labour legislations. INTUC made use of the new political circumstances and
widened its base. During this period, the plantation sector was brought under the
definition of industry in the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 through an award given by
the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. The award was given on an appeal filed by
Vellanikkara and Thattil Estate Labour Congress, a union in Thrissur district led by
INTUC leader K.Karunakaran. The intervention of the Government of Travancore–
Cochin in the case, ensured by Karunakaran, was helpful for obtaining such an
award.
K.V.Mathew Pottankulam formed the first INTUC linked union in

plantations of Central Travancore in 1948, named The Thiru–Cochi Thottam
Thozhilali Union (TCTTU). The centre of the union was Mundakayam3. In the early
1950s itself INTUC could make strong base among tea workers in Munnar under the
leadership of B. K. Nair and K. Karunakaran. However, the spread of INTUC was
slow in Central Travancore region and it became a stronghold only in the latter half
of the decade.
2
Sanmargodaya Coolivela Sanghom means workers organization for moral excellence. It reveals
the nature of activities the union.
3
Interview with C.A.Kurian, one of the pioneering TU leaders in the study area and the present
President of the state unit of AITUC.
103
Though declared illegal in 1948, the AITUC tried to continue its activities in
the state by developing new organizational forms like United Workers Union in
Feroke, Workers’ committees in Alappuzha and Cashew Workers Council in
Kollam. In the early months of 1951 several TU leaders were released from jail.
Then AITUC and UTUC called for a joint movement of workers. The general
election in India in 1952 elected senior Left TU leaders like A.K. Gopalan, P.T.
Punnoose and N. Sreekandan Nair to the Parliament. Eminent AITUC leaders in
Malabar like K.P. Gopalan and C.H. Kanaran were elected to the Madras legislative
Assembly. T.V.Thomas, R. Sugathan and C.G.Sadasivan, the senior AITUC leaders,
and UTUC leaders like T.K.Divakaran became members (MLAs) to Thiru-Cochi
Assembly. In 1951, the Parliament enacted the Plantation Labour (PL) Act. In 1952
the ban on progressive movements was lifted. All these developments paved the way
for the strong revival of AITUC in plantations (Prakasam 1979, pp.198–227).
In 1951 AITUC established roots in Central Travancore, and in 1952 it

formed at Mundakayam the High Range Estate Employees Association (HEEA), the
union for plantation workers in Peermade and Mundakayam regions. Rosamma
Punnoose was the first President and Suku the General Secretary of the union. Other
prominent leaders were Kottayam Bhasi, P.A. Chandy and K.I. Rajan. Later, M.
Sankarankutty joined them (Kurian 2008).
In 1952 UTUC made an attempt to start union activities in Central

Travancore by capturing the TCTTU, led by Mathew Pottankulam at Mundakayam
and affiliating it to UTUC. The strategic attempt initiated under the leadership of
RSP leader N. Sreekandan Nair did not succeed and later the union was affiliated to
INTUC. Then UTUC started functioning by registering a separate union High Range
Plantation Employees Union (HPLU) with Prakulam Bhasi as president and
K.Pachu Pillai as general secretary. While AITUC concentrated its activities in
Mundakayam, Peermade and Vandiperiyar areas, the activities of UTUC became
active in Elappara, Kottamala, Wagamon, Mundakayam and Cheenthalar. The
former leaders of UTUC in plantations of Peermade–Mundakayam region were
N.Sreekandan Nair, Prakkulam Bhasi, K. Pachu Pillai and C.A. Devasikutty.
104
As everywhere in India, planters in Central Travancore adopted various

measures to obstruct the entry of TU leaders and their interaction with workers. The
union activists had to resist goondas of management, who frequently attacked
outside TU workers. Peermade police station was a notorious place where union
workers were brutally tortured. Tea workers, who either met outside leaders or
provided any assistance to them for organizing union, were treated cruelly by
management. Outside union leaders in the initial years of organization faced ill-
treatment and attack of men of management. Hence, the leaders spent day time in
disguise and met the workers secretly in night. C.A.Devasikutty, the first Vice
President of HPLU, spent daytime for a few months as cattle-vendor in the estates.
The management men were always suspicious about the coming and going of
outsiders. In 1953, Sridharan, a newly appointed Labour Welfare Officer came in the
Seminy Valley estate near Elappara and met workers. Misunderstanding the officer
as a TU activist, the management men, attacked him brutally (Devasikutty 2013).
Seven workers had to sign the bylaw for registering a union and it was very
difficult to identify this minimum number of workers, as the workers, especially
Tamil workers, feared the probable retaliation on the part of management for the
same. Social awareness and literacy level were so poor among Tamil workers that it
was more difficult to organize them during the initial stages of TU movement. For
example, though the major part of the labour force was made up of Tamil workers,
only one out of seven workers who signed the bylaw for the registration of HPL
union was Tamil speaking. Moreover, majority of workers, then and now, belonged
to scheduled castes, but only one worker from those castes came forward for the
registration of the union (ibid).
It was very difficult to develop labour movement without breaking the

terrible atmosphere created by planters, and annihilating the fear of workers. The
leaders decided to retaliate the repressive measures adopted by managements,
wherever possible, thereby raising the confidence among TU activists and workers.
Both AITUC and UTUC formed small cells with committed and militant groups of
workers to counter the goondas of estate owners. A group of TU workers under the
leadership of C.A.Devasikutty attacked Taylor, the English Manager of Peermade
Tea Company, Cheenthalar, who always cruelly ill-treated the workers. In another
105
incident a group of UTUC workers manhandled mercilessly a Kankany in Hailberia

Tea Company, whose cruelties to workers, especially TU activists became
unbearable.
As the TUs began to retaliate against the cruelties, goondas and Management
personnel, planters tried to discourage the TU workers and weaken the labour
movement by registering criminal cases. During this period Devasikutty faced
criminal proceedings in 13 criminal cases, related to TU activities. Since the wage of
workers was very low, it was difficult to raise fund for running the cases. TU leaders
faced serious financial difficulties to continue activities. Sometimes they conducted
dramas and other art programmes for raising fund for union activities. One day the
general secretary of HPLU, N. Pachu Pillai disappeared. The fellow workers in the
union believed that he had absconded because of financial liabilities, caused by
union activities.
While the direct clashes between Management and TU activists were

becoming violent, some police officials, bureaucrats and judicial officers began to
consider the cases against workers with leniency. As a result, Managements in many
estates were forced to compromise and held discussions with TU leaders. On these
occasions state level leaders like Sreekandan Nair and Rosamma Punnoose
represented TUs and strategically utilized these discussions for accelerating labour
movement in estates. The growing movement of Left parties in Kerala and their
participation in Parliament and state legislatures and consequent public recognition
was helpful to speed up the above developments in estates (Devasikutty 2013). In
1950s UTUC too could establish a strong foothold in plantation centres of
Peermade–Mundakayam regions like Chinnar, Elappara, Kottamala and
Mundakayam. The UTUC in plantations in those times was combative so as to resist
the attack of Managements and its goondas (ibid).
Thus TU movement grew steadily in tea estates in the study area. Following
AITUC and UTUC, the Congress party linked INTUC started functioning in the
study area. In a bid to avoid the spread of radical, militant Left TUs, planters created
favourable atmosphere for the growth of INTUC in some estates. Planters’ control
and patronage over INTUC affiliated unions in plantation sector was not a unique
106
phenomenon of Kerala. The Doars Planters Association (DPA), a planters’

association in Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, even formally decided in 1947 to encourage
the Congress Party to form INTUC in estates. But the planters feared the entry of
communists. So DPA decided to permit only congress members with identification
cards to organize TU (Bhowmik 1981). Moreover, the Congress leaders had close
social and familial relations with the Bengal planters, which led the TU leaders to
avoid effective struggles in estates.
In some plantation areas of the country, native planters were active in

Congress party and they defend the mobilization of labour by keeping Congress-
linked unions inactive. For example the planters had dominance in the district
Congress committee of Jalpaiguri of West Bengal, and could limit the activities of
Congress among the tea workers (ibid, p. 140). The owner of MMJ Plantations,
Wagamon in the study area was a Congress leader and once contested an election to
the State Assembly from Peermade constituency. Noted planter in Wayanad, M.J.
Jinachandran was a leading Congressman and Parliament member. He took utmost
care to avoid the influence of unions over the workers of his estates (Gopi and
Kunnathu 2006, p. 62).
In 1947 INTUC was formulated in India by splitting the first central TU,
AITUC. In the post-Independence period some eminent leaders of Indian National
Congress (INC) concentrated on TU activities by resisting Left TUs and organizing
workers separately under its banner. In plantations of Kerala INTUC was introduced
during a favourable period, 1946–1952, while AITUC was banned and could neither
undertake day- to-day activities in estates, nor utilize the favourable political climate
created by Independence.
In the early 1950s itself INTUC could make strong base among tea workers
in Munnar in Idukki district under the leadership of B K. Nair and K Karunakaran.
As stated earlier, managements were helpful for the growth of INTUC. The
managements tried their best to marginalize AITUC and UTUC, while recognizing
INTUC and providing it an authenticity by collecting the monthly subscription
amount of union members out of their wage, and handing it over to the union
officials. In spite of the theoretical and organizational clash with AITUC, and
107
consequent development of disunity and union rivalry brought about by its

introduction, the INTUC could contribute much to the development of labour
movement in Kerala by organizing a large group of workers, who were unorganized
and providing them the benefits of post-Independence labour legislations.
Following are some of the agitations and incidents during initial stages of TU
Movement in tea plantations in Central Travancore area, which reflect the hardships
faced by the Movement in its earlier stages, and their resistance.
4.5.1 35th Mile Strike
A significant share of middle-class people around plantations in

Mundakayam region was Syrian Christians. The close relation among the Syrian
Christians, the planter’s organization and Congress Party, and the growing political
influence of Syrian Christian planters made the organizational works of AITUC in
the initial periods tedious. The anxiety of a section of farmers and businessmen
around plantations on the growth of communist movement, which they regarded as
the enemy of private property, increased the opposition to AITUC. These forces now
and then attacked TU workers with the help and connivance of police.
C.A.Kurian, a senior TU leader described an incident that occurred in

September 1952: A procession of plantation workers in 35th mile, near Mundakayam
was attacked by the goondas of Kallivelil Jose, a wealthy and influential landlord.
The small growers in the nearby places and the Sub Inspector of police who came
there supported the outrage. However, the workers under the banner of HEEA, union
affiliated to AITUC, took out the procession. (Kurian 2009)
4.5.2 Incidents in Meloram Estate and Malayalam Plantation
The planters were always vigilant in preventing the interaction of outside TU

leaders and their progressive ideas with workers inside the estates. One day the top
leaders of HEEA, including Rosamma Punnoose and Kottyam Bhasi came to the
Meloram Estate in Peermade Taluk to see the workers. Since the gates were locked,
they could not enter the estate. When the workers began to break the lock, the
leaders prevented as it would be termed as criminal act. However, as they had the
legal right to see the members of union, the leaders themselves decided to break the
108
lock and enter the estate. The Manager of the estate lodged a complaint against the
leaders in the Police Station. However, the Sub Inspector of police agreed with the
version of the leaders that they had the right to enter the estate as part of union
activities (Kurian 2009; Nair 2006, p 539).
4.5.3 Police Firing at Pasumala Estate
As per the demand of various TUs, the Travancore–Cochin Government

appointed Minimum Wages Committee and Minimum Wages Advisory Committee
in 1952 and 1953 respectively. As per the recommendation of these committees, the
wage was enhanced. But planters began to cut down fringe benefits. On 21 April
1952 workers led a demonstration to the bungalow of the employer of Pasumala
Estate, near Vandiperiyar, demanding the restoration of fringe benefits. The police
attacked the workers and tried to repress the strike. On the next day workers struck
work and held a massive rally. Police reached there and lathicharged the workers.
The incident came to an end with firing by the police, which caused the death of two
workers (Rajan 1972).
4.5.4 Chandravanam Estate Struggle
The strike of labour against the dismissal of 83 workers of Chandravanam

Estate, near Vandiperiyar in 1952 reflects the unscrupulous acts on the part of
planters in those days and the anti-labour stand taken by state machinery (Prakasam
1979, pp. 228–230). The government referred the dispute to adjudication. The
Industrial Tribunal, Kollam came to the following conclusion.
On a complaint lodged by the planter, police came into the estate on 19

August1952, filed cases against some workers, and arrested four workers. After a
few days, as per the request of the planter, a company of Armed Reserve Police
stayed in the estate for two weeks. This fearful atmosphere forced workers to run
away from the estate. This act of workers was a means of self-protection and
therefore natural. Hence, they should not have been dismissed for unauthorised
absence from duty. The unwanted hostility of the planter to the workers was the
reason behind further developments in the estate. The thought of the planter that
workers could become members of union led by leaders of communist ideology
109
worsened the situation. The planter adopted cruel repressive measures to prevent
workers from joining the union.
The Tribunal awarded that the workers should be reinstated with

compensation. The planter did not execute the award and government prosecuted
him. However, later the government withdrew the action. Then recovery action was
initiated against the planter for the disbursement of compensation to workers. The
planter approached the court and resisted the action. The unions accused that the
government indirectly helped the Management evade the execution of award
through lack of vigilance and pretence of helplessness. During the course of the
strike, even the leaders of HEEA like P.A Chandy had to face the torture of police
and goondas of the planter.
4.5.5 Strike in Chemmannu Estate
The speedy growth of HEEA union affiliated to AITUC in 1950s in Semini

Valley Estate, Chemmannu near Elappara annoyed the planter, Kalluveli Jose. He
arranged a team of goondas to repress a few local TU leaders. On 3 January 1958 the
team reached the Muster ground of the estate in the morning, where workers were in
preparation for daily works. The goondas suddenly attacked workers with dangerous
weapons. The organized workers retaliated. The goondas escaped. But the leader of
the team and a local TU activist, Samuel Nadar died in the encounter. The planter
feared for his life and absconded from the estate. Workers struck work for one week
(Rajan 1972).
4.5.6 Strike in Munnar
The labour strikes in tea plantations of Kannan Devan Hills Produce

Company (KDHP) in Munnar in 1958 was a land mark in the history of TU
Movement in Kerala as a whole and its impact was multidimensional in nature
(Baak 1997; Nair 2006; Kurian 2010). Its impact on labour movement in tea
plantations in the state was tremendous. The major unions there, The Devikulam
Estate Workers Union (AITUC) and Plantation Labour union (INTUC), had handed
over to the management the notice listing various demands of workers. Since the
management did not comply with the demands, unions started strike on 4 October
1958. On the same day itself the INTUC came to an agreement with the
110
Management and decided to resume work. Accordingly major issues regarding

bonus and gratuity were to be referred to adjudication. Dissatisfied with the
conditions, AITUC did not sign the agreement and called for the continuation of
strike. The state government led by the Communist Party was also unwilling to refer
the issues to adjudication and insisted on direct negotiations.
While the confrontation between Management and workers led by AITUC

was progressing, police fired on workers in different estates of the company and two
workers were shot dead. The series of incidences invited the intervention of central
government. AITUC called off the strike on 29 October and the labour movement
lost momentum. After a few months the Communist Party-led state government was
dismissed. The bonus issue was settled only later in an industry level tripartite
meeting in 1960. While the unions’ initial demand of bonus was 25 per cent for the
year 1957, it was fixed within a range 4 to 7.5 per cent, depending on the quality and
quantity of crops. Workers of both unions were dissatisfied and the entire union
machinery lost enthusiasm.
Planters, state officials and labour interpreted the events differently. Planters
alleged that the AITUC used the strategy of terrorism for the success of the
unwanted strike and the state government led by Communist Party supported their
illegal acts. The leading newspapers in the nation generally agreed with the
allegations raised by planters against AITUC and the Communist Party. But S.
Govinda Menon, Revenue Board Member, who investigated the incident, reported
that the English personnel of several estates failed to reconcile themselves to the
changed post-Independence political conditions. He blamed the Management for the
hostilities and considered the workers as victims (Baak 1997).
But the version of AITUC is as follows: Actually the central TUs in

plantations of Kerala had been planning a state-wide strike in the last week of
October 1958, when the INTUC in Munnar served the strike notice in KDHP
unilaterally. Since the INTUC leaders were adamant in their decision to start strike
on 4 October, AITUC decided to join the strike for the sake of working class unity.
However, on the very first day of the strike itself INTUC abruptly and unexpectedly
surrendered before the Management. All the workers welcomed the decision of
111
AITUC to continue the strike. Sensing possible victory of the strike, the planters,
INTUC, Congress Party and the press made a concerted move against the agitation.
But the state government led by Communist Party considered the problems of labour
from a different angle. The union alleged that central police cunningly intervened in
the agitation and the action of shooting was part of anti-Communist strategy of
planters.
Some eye witnesses and workers, who were also shot at, stated that central
police men, deputed to counter the agitating workers, deliberately and brutally
intervened in the confrontation and the shooting was not an act of self-defence of
police, but an action to create a fearful atmosphere in estates, to create a demand for
the intervention of the central government. On 27 October, the President of UPASI
telegraphed the central government that the situation in plantations in Kerala was out
of control, and therefore an immediate intervention on the part of the central
government was indispensable. The central government took up the matter with state
government. Finally, The Communist Government in Kerala unwillingly persuaded
the AITUC in Munnar to stop the strike and subsequently the union called off the
same (ibid, 1997).
The ultimate result of the strike was that planters successfully mobilized
press, the Congress Party and the central government to win the battle against both
the Communist Party and its labour movement (ibid, pp. 260–273). Later, the
Chairman of Association of Planters of Kerala (APK) formally appreciated the press
for its generous cooperation rendered during the period of strike. The outcome of the
strike was highly disappointing to AITUC and it had to move back several steps.
Numerous active workers in the union were dismissed or suspended from service.
The militancy and radical nature of the organization was muted (Kurian 2010).
Though the outcome of the strike was temporarily beneficial to INTUC in the
organizational sense, in a broader sense, the failure of the working class in the
capital–labour conflicts would have serious long-term impact on labour movement,
whether Left or Right.
112
4.5.7 TU Movement in the 1960s
The dismissal of Communist party-led government in Kerala on 31May 1959

retarded the growth of AITUC in plantation sector as in all other sectors in the state.
Some union offices became inactive for a period of time. The 1960s witnessed state-
wide agitations in plantations by unions separately and jointly. During that period
there were some political developments in the nation, which affected the TU
movement in plantations too. These developments were the police action and
imposition of repressive criminal proceedings against a section of Communist Party
workers and AITUC leaders, alleged to have followed an anti-national stand in
India–China war in 1962, the split in CPI and the formation of a new Communist
Party, Communist Part of India (Marxist) or CPI(M) in 1964 and consequent
internal conflicts in AITUC which led to the formation of new central TU in 1970,
the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU).
It is noteworthy that even after the split in the Communist Party in 1964, the
AITUC could go ahead as a single union till 1970 due to the vigilance on the part of
its leaders in maintaining working-class solidarity. But it could not be maintained
for a long period, and finally it split into two unions in 1970. Actually, an internal
fight had been going on in AITUC affiliated unions, in various sectors including
plantation, since the split in the Communist party. Leaders, who had been working
together for decades, fought for ensuring dominance in affiliated unions and fighting
over possession of office buildings and other assets.
In spite of the above facts, the coming to power of a coalition government

led by CPI (M) in 1967, backed by all TUs, except INTUC, created an atmosphere
for united agitations in the plantation sector. INTUC too joined the united
movement. During that period a permanent platform for united action of plantation
workers in Wayanad, later named as South Wayanad Trade Union Action Council,
was formed. Since managements declined to respond positively to the Charter of
Demands, all unions together called for a strike in the plantations of Kerala. The
leaders of the movement, B.K. Nair (INTUC), R. Ramalingom, K.I. Rajan (AITUC),
Sivarama Bharathy, P.P. Wilson (HMS), T.M. Prabha, P.P. Varghese (UTUC) and
Beeran (STU) were able to organize state-level and district-level joint action
113
committees. Workers’ demonstrations were held at taluk centres. The strike came to
an end after 38 days when the state government issued notification by re-
ascertaining wage and other benefits of workers (Gopi and Kunnathu, (2006),
pp.120–123).
In October 1969, the CPI (M)-led ministry in Kerala lost majority in the
Assembly and CPI shifted to the Congress-led front. Then a government came into
force with the CPI leader C. Achutha Menon as Chief Minister. On 21 March 1972
tea plantation workers of Kerala observed a token strike demanding 12.5 per cent
bonus. Management agreed to settle the issue by giving 10 per cent. There was
another strike in plantation sector on 01 August 1974 for the implementation of new
DA rates and minimum wage as suggested by the state government.
The unions made preparations for united agitations demanding the

implementations of conditions of PL Act. There was an attempt on the part of
Plantation Inspectorate to register estates, which had the required area and labour for
being considered under PL Act. As per the demand of unions, Plantation
Inspectorate took necessary action to register some estates. This provoked the
planters. The native planters were more critical of TUs than the large-scale planters
like Kannan Devan, Malayalam Plantations and Birla (ibid, p.133).
The employers argued that with the coming of the progressive Indian
constitution, the welfare of workers became the responsibility of the state. The cost
of running estates was becoming unbearable and therefore a lot of welfare
provisions incorporated in the PL Act could not be implemented. In 1973 the
government formed a Plantation Labour Enquiry Committee to look into the matter.
As the functioning of the committee was progressing, Emergency was declared on
25 June 1975. Strikes and labour agitations were banned. Thus, many TU leaders
could not appear before the committee and present the statements.
Though, the nation had experienced Emergency earlier, gravity of its

implementation was severe in 1975. However, anti-Congress TUs in the nation
protested the anti-labour amendments to Industrial Dispute Act and Bonus Act
introduced during this period. This intensified the repressive measures of police
114
against TUs. In Kerala numerous TU leaders, especially of CITU, were either jailed
or forced to go underground. K. Padmanabhan, general secretary of Kerala
Plantation Labour Federation (CITU) and several senior leaders of CITU in
plantation sector were jailed. Naturally, the Emergency period in Kerala became
relatively favourable to the functioning of AITUC and INTUC, unions linked to
ruling parties of the state, and both the unions could extend their roots deeper into
the plantation sector.
The senior leaders of CITU in plantations of Peermade Taluk namely

P.T.Simon, M.G.Ramachandran, P.I. Mathew, K.S.Krishnan etc. had to suffer a lot
of repressive measures of police during the Emergency Period, and therefore had to
go into hiding, which adversely affected the union activities (Krishnan 2009).
Earlier, consequent to the split in AITUC, the CITU had become organizationally
stronger than AITUC in the study area. But the favourable situation of Emergency
and the partnership of CPI in state government helped the growth of AITUC.
In December 1976 the Emergency was withdrawn. In the subsequent general

election in 1977 the Congress-led front, consisting of CPI and RSP, gained majority
of seats in Kerala both to Parliament and State Assembly. Plantation areas elected,
by and large, leaders of INTUC and AITUC as MLAs, who contested unitedly. In
the study area of Peermade Assembly constituency, C.A. Kurian, leader of AITUC,
who contested as the candidate of Congress–CPI front, was elected, defeating
K.S.Krishnan, the CITU leader. However, the state-sponsored cruelties faced by
CITU leaders during Emergency period, their adventurous union and party activities
and staying with workers in layams as hiding places helped create better relation
with rank and file. It further created a feeling among a many workers that CITU was
taking comparatively better and stern stand against planters for protecting the
interest of workers, where as AITUC and INTUC were pragmatic, vacillating and
sometimes pro-Management ( Krishnan 2009; Soman 2014).
The split in the Congress Party in Kerala into Congress (I) led by
K. Karunakaran and Congress (A) led by A.K. Antony also caused a corresponding
division in INTUC. Then the functioning of two unions of INTUC in a single
115
establishment came up. In addition, there emerged a situation where individual

Congress leaders began to form ‘their pocket unions’, leading to the functioning of
more than two unions of INTUC in many establishments. These unions, very often,
served their leaders as pressure groups for obtaining higher positions both in party
and parliamentary bodies. This phenomenon that developed in the INTUC further
intensified the union rivalry and unhealthy competition in the plantation sector. Now
there are four unions of INTUC functioning in the study area, competing against
each other.
The functioning of left parties unitedly as partners of the Left Democratic

Front (LDF) since 1980s has helped the joint movement of Left TUs and the
formation of united platforms in state and district levels. This arrangement is
effective for mobilizing workers for the agitations called for by united forums of
Left unions at the central or state level against anti-labour policies. However, they
could not develop a permanent united platform at industry level or firm level on the
basis of class politics. It is a common scene in some estates that AITUC is in
alliance with INTUC, opposing CITU whereas in some other estates CITU and
INTUC jointly oppose AITUC and other unions. There is the lack of unity among
the Left labour unions at the grass root level, the impact of which is discussed in
chapter 7.
The economic crisis in 1980s adversely affected the price of tea. Thus the
initial years of 1980s witnessed a crisis in tea industry in India leading to lockouts in
some estates and non-payment of wages to workers. TUs assessed the general
situation in estates as not conducive to struggle (AIPWF 1982, p. 67). Around 38
estates were closed or locked out in India and workload was increased in all states
along with cut in fringe benefits, DA and bonus. There were lockouts in five estates
in Kerala. When lockout was declared in Arappetta estate in Wayanad, a sympathy
strike took place involving 20000 workers of various estates in Kerala.
In spite of the planned retaliating strategies adopted by planters, labour

movement became a reality in estates by 1980. However, some planters continued
the ill-treatment of TU workers, depending on police and goondas. Churakkulam
estate witnessed a labour agitation in 1980 and in connection with the same,
116
Vazhoor Soman, General Secretary of HEL Union (AITUC), visited the police
station at Vandiperiyar. While talking to the leader, the Sub Inspector of Police, who
was alleged to have been receiving bribe from the planter, unexpectedly hit Soman.
The ear drum of the leader was broken and he fell down unconscious. The incident
was brought to the notice of the Kerala State Legislative Assembly, which was in
session. The Assembly discussed the matter and the delinquent Sub Inspector was
placed under suspension and transferred to a distant place (Soman 2014). The quick
response on the part of the Government shows the notable strength and capacity of
TU Movement, acquired by decades of continuous agitations.
The continuous efforts on the part of labour movement for the betterment of
wage, working conditions and living conditions of plantation workers began to yield
results during 1950–1957. The Parliament passed a comprehensive law for the
betterment of plantation workers. Corresponding rules for the implementation of the
Act were introduced in Thiru- Cochi state as Thiruvithancore-Cochi Plantation
Labour Rules and in Malabar area as Malabar Plantation Labour Rules for the then
Madras state only in 1955. This lethargy on the part of state Governments led the
workers to hold agitations for implementation of the benefits of the Act. Subsequent
to the formation of Kerala state, Kerala Plantation Labour Rules came into force in
1959.
As per the new Act, planters were duty bound to provide healthy working
conditions, medical facilities, child care and residential facilities to workers.
Moreover, the total working hours should not exceed 64 hours in a week; earned
leave became compulsory and children below the age of 12 years should not be
employed. The rules permitted outside TU activists to enter the estates and organize
workers. In fact, the demands, which had been raised by plantation workers in
Thiru-Cochi and Malabar since 1940 became the basis of welfare measures
incorporated in the PL Act. Though the historical demands raised by workers were
recognized partially in the Act, the powerful planters adopted all measures to
weaken the labour movement, which was continuously demanding the
implementation of the rules.
117
The centre of TU activity in plantations then focused on the implementation

of the rules. Even after the unification of the state of Kerala and with the Communist
Party in power, a few estates, mainly of native planters, did not allow outside TU
activists to enter the estates for union activities. But labour movement was not
willing to surrender before the obstinacy and undemocratic acts of the planters.
Gradually, planters were forced to implement the conditions of PL Act, though
partially.
On 31 January 1955 plantation workers struck work on some basic demands.

As a result, the Thiru-Cochi government on 2 June 1955 decided to form a Special
Tribunal to solve existing labour issues. The issues referred to the Tribunal were
bonus for four years from 1951, the sanction of increment proportionate to service,
work load, gratuity, gender equality in wage, sick allowance, night duty allowance,
food to the children of workers etc. But the government did not take initiative for the
formulation of the Tribunal and workers continued with the agitation. In 1956, the
Chief Minister, Panambally Govinda Menon convened a tripartite meeting to solve
the grievances of workers. The conciliation failed on the issue of bonus, and
consequently AITUC, INTUC and UTUC jointly called for a general strike on 1
May1956. The state government intervened in the matter and solved the issue of
bonus in favour of the workers (Prakasam 1979, p. 226). A general strike was called
for on 22 May 1957 on the issue of bonus for 1955–1956. The then Labour Minister
of Kerala, T.V. Thomas intervened in the matter. The bonus was decided in a
conciliation conference held on 20 May 1957 and the strike was called off.
Along with the state-wide agitations, unions very often engaged in issues that
developed in individual estates too. Such individual agitations for better wage,
working conditions and democratic rights led to the emergence of repressive
measures of planters, retaliation and militant action on the part of TUs, disruption of
law and order, consequent police action etc.
4.6 Withdrawal of Big Firms from Lower Segments of Value Chain
The structure of tea industry has become complex over the last three decades,
making the responsibilities of TUs too multifaceted. Unions, which revolve around
narrow goals, cannot respond effectively to new strategies adopted by business
118
groups to extract maximum surplus value. They fail to satisfy the needs of changing
times. Two recent strategies adopted by big business groups in tea, in this respect,
are the withdrawal from lower segments of value chain and ‘Participatory
Management Model’.
The concept of value chain refers to the chain of activities from production to
consumption, engaging different stakeholders, who control and add value along the
chain. Tea value chain means the stages from cultivation and production of green
leaves. Value is added to the product at each stage of chain. Cultivation of green
leaves and manufacturing of black tea, sale in auction, buying, blending, packeting,
marketing, retailing etc. are different stages or segments of the value chain.
Blending, packeting, marketing and retailing are most profitable, which are
dominated and controlled by a few multinational companies, who in effect,
determine retail price and producer price, and dominate trade. At the same time
cultivation, manufacturing of black tea and auctioning are less profitable or non-
remunerative.
Thus firms in tea sector can be classified into different groups according to
their stakes in different nodes of commodity value chain. The firms with stakes in all
nodes of value chain, which are able to compensate losses, if any, in any of the
nodes with the help of higher value in other nodes, make better profit. For example,
AV Thomas group(AVT), functioning in the study area, run two types of companies
in the tea sector; one type cover the stages namely running of estates, manufacturing
of black tea and sale in auction; and the other type of companies deal with buying in
auction, blending, value addition, packeting, marketing and retail sale. First type of
companies has got stakes only in the lower value segments of the industry, and the
second type companies have stakes exclusively in nodes of higher values. Firms,
having stakes in segments with higher value, make better profit. But majority of
estates in the nation as well as study area operate only at nodes of lower values.
Since 2000 numerous companies have been trying to resort to various

strategies like downsizing of work force, diversification of crops, development of
nature-based tourism and real estate business due to the declining margin in less
profitable nodes of value chain in tea,. In addition to these, some big companies
119
have brought structural changes in plantation model, by making use of their

dominance in the highly profitable nodes of value chain. Big companies, as a
business strategy, withdraw from less attractive segments like running of estates and
manufacturing of black tea, and concentrate more on better attractive segments like
buying of black tea, blending, packeting, marketing, retailing etc.
The two biggest companies in tea sector of India, Hindustan Uniliver (HUL)
and Tata Tea practised the new business strategy of withdrawal from less profitable
segments of value chain. HUL sold its tea estates in North India. Tata Tea Limited
(TTL) held two groups of tea plantations in India, one in the northern region,
spreading over Assam and West Bengal states, and other group at Munnar, located
in Idukki district of Kerala. TTL handed over 16 estates and 15 factories, possessed
by it in Munnar hills in 2005 to the newly formed company, Kannan Devan Hills
Plantation Company Private Limited (KDHPCL), in which workers too became
shareholders.
4.7 Participatory Management Model in Tea Estates
As discussed above, big players, having stakes at all nodes of the commodity
value chain, cleverly withdraw from segments bearing lower margins. The way TTL
worked out its new business strategy was unique regarding the design of the new
business model, and the conditions of handing over of the estates to the new company,
framed in tune with its long-term business interest. It succeeded, to a great extent, in
obtaining the support of workers and public to the materialization of the new business
model, by projecting it as a worker friendly participatory management system. The
model was hailed by many as an amicable solution to the crisis in tea estates, ensuring
democratic participation of workers in management (Deepika 2010; 2012).
The conflicts between labour and capital in the areas of modern management
and business decision making is part of wider political and ideological struggle.
Hence, the practice of participation at various levels of management necessitates
theoretical clarity and political vision on the part of labour movement. The
participatory management model, proposed by TTL at Munnar, was a new
phenomenon in the tea sector of India. The Tata group had already practiced the same
business model in its plantations in Assam too. In addition to the concerns on financial
120
viability and sustainability of estates, the model raised some crucial questions
regarding capital–labour conflicts: does the new model strengthen or weaken the
power of capital, or does it increase the rights of labour, or help only to accelerate
exploitation of labour? No readymade answers were available to TUs. The only option
opened to them was to evolve a position on the basis of theoretical clarity and examine
earlier similar experiences of workers anywhere else. But earlier experiences were not
sufficient for arriving at a proper conclusion. Furthermore, it seems that TUs have
neither examined the features of the model within the theoretical contributions
available, nor discussed them sufficiently at all levels of organizational structure.
Basically there are two views on workers’ participation in management

namely ‘the initiative conception’ and ‘conflict cooperation concept’ (Volkov 1986).
As per the former concept, participation in management is a class demand of
workers from below, the practice of which is the result of capital–labour conflict and
is a gain of working class. Besides it flourishes class consciousness and inspires
workers to fight for cardinal reforms. Though it does not solve the question of
ownership and power, it can support the struggle for the solution to these questions.
On the contrary, the latter concept considers participation as a coercive

strategy of employers in response to the growth of labour movement and an attempt
to discipline workers. The practice of participation is a compromise on the part of
workers, rather than a result of struggle with capital. Participation does not raise
consciousness, but creates illusions in the mind of workers, compelling them to
leave the basic struggles. Participation can no way help the struggle for ownership
and power, but can weaken that struggle (ibid).
Apart from the above two extreme Right and Left viewpoints, a pragmatic
approach to participation, depending on the concrete realities of the nation and
context, is more feasible. Workers’ participation in management and the demand for
the same have different meaning in different contexts, depending on the socio-
political conditions and the power of Labour Movement there. So both the decisions
to exempt the chance of worker control, alleging it is reformist, and to practice
blindly all forms of participation, without assessing its short term and long term
impact on capital- labour conflicts, are equally wrong.
121
The participatory model in Tata Tea at Munnar was introduced not as a result
of any demands on the part of TUs for participation in management, as TU had
never raised such a demand. The company took initiative for the implementation of
the model as part of its global business strategy of withdrawal from the lower nodes
of commodity value chain in tea industry, and thereby shifting the burden of running
estates to the shoulder of workers. The terms and conditions of the transfer of estates
to the newly constituted company, its management structure and the nature of its
ownership were designed by TTL itself (Deepika 2010; Palanivel 2013).
As the estate land at Munnar was, by and large, leased one, Tata could not
have transferred the ownership of these estates to private parties. Only two estates,
Pallivasal and Periyakanal, have got valid title deed. All other estates are leased
land. It is worthy of thought that only leased estates were transferred to the new
company. All unions in Munnar directly or indirectly agreed with the conditions of
the settlement. One of the state office bearers of AITUC, Vazhoor Soman, who
resisted the package of new company as anti-labour, had to face disciplinary action
of the Communist Party of India (CPI) for taking a stand against that of AITUC and
the party (Soman 2014).
This strategy of formulation of a new company provided another advantage

to Tata Group, as the workers, who were elevated as shareholders, would come
forward to resist any movement on the part of state to take over thousands of acres
of government land, reportedly possessed illegally by TTL. It is notable that the
plantation workers, irrespective of TUs, were in the forefront to defeat the ‘Munnar
Eviction4 Mission’, initiated by the state government in 2007.
Moreover, the main intention of Tata Group behind the new business
strategy was to concentrate on branded tea globally. The company ensured
provisions in the new participatory model to continuously acquire sufficient quantity
of green tea leaves from KDHPCL to the tea factory, maintained till date by Tata.
Likewise KDHPCL supply black tea to TATA for its blending units. TTL has
entered into an agreement with KDHPCL, ensuring the supply of green leaf and
4
The mission started by the Government of Kerala in 2007 to evict illegal possession of
Government land by others in Munnar. See chapter 5 of the study for details.
122
black tea from the latter. TTL did not hand over to KDHPCL the instant tea factory
at Munnar, which has an annual capacity to produce two lakh tonnes of black tea.
Furthermore, TTL retained the brand name ‘Kannan Devan’. The business of Tata in
tea, even prior to the introduction of KDHPCL, covering all nodes in the value chain
as a whole, was highly profitable. But the basic instinct of the capitalist is to
accumulate continuously or make more and more profit. Hence, Tata decided to
move back from cultivation and primary level production of black tea and focused
on branded business. Thus, the introduction of the KDHPCL, with the attractive
covering of ‘Participatory Management Model’, was the business need of Tata,
rather than a response to any demand of workers for democratic participation in
management or an effort of TTL itself to ensure the same.
A close watch of the management structure of the new company reveals that
the claim of TTL, that the ownership was transferred mainly to workers and majority
of shares are held by them is misleading. Share holding pattern of KDHPCL shows
that only 29 per cent of the total shares were allotted to Supervisors and Workers of
the company (Table 4.1). TTL itself keeps 18 per cent of total shares. Another
noteworthy fact is that workers pay their money to buy the share of the enterprise,
whereas the wealth of the enterprise has been created basically by workers
themselves. Hence, the crucial question is how far the participation of workers is
ensured in management.
Table 4.1
Share Holding Pattern of KDHPCL, Munnar
Category of shareholders Percentage of shares held
Workers and supervisors 29
Staff of KDHPCL 8
Management staff of KDHPCL 32
Tata Tea Limited 18
KDHP Welfare Trust 7
Ex Management staff 6
Source: Compiled from details collected from IR Dept. KDHPCL, cited in Deepika 2012.
123
As part of the Participatory Management Structure, a three tier system of

advisory committees was adopted in the company. At the grass root level there is a
Division level/Factory level Advisory Committee(DAC/FAC) led by an Assistant
Manager, having six members, including two male workers and two female workers.
Above the same there is the Joined Estate/Factory Consultative Committees (JECC)
to coordinate the functioning of former. The latter, led by Estate Manager/Factory
Manager as convener, consisting of 17–26 members, of which 6–13 members will
be from the category of workers/supervisors. Both these committees deal with the
carrying out of routine works in fields and factory. Management can make use of
these committees to discipline workers. Both the committees would report to the
Central Management Committee (CMC), which consists of 11 members including
only one from worker/ supervisory category, and led by the MD of the company. All
these committees made some suggestions on various issues and final decisions are
taken by the Director Board of the company.
The above figures reveal that the representation of workers in decision-

making stages of the company is not at all satisfactory. Broadly speaking, various
categories of staff too belong to the larger group of working class. In the hierarchical
top down approach of management that prevailed in plantations, staff has always
been, unequivocally and historically, loyal to top management, and therefore they
can be considered, in effect, as supporters of top management. Therefore, the
ownership or management has not been transferred to workers. The agendas to be
discussed and issues to be taken in to consideration at various levels are designed by
top management, as earlier, and representatives of workers can be active within the
framework developed by top management. The top management, recruited by TTL,
is naturally bound to protect its interest.
The new model becomes advantageous to the top management to limit the
activities of TUs, surpassing them by exhibiting various advisory committees as
forums for grievance redressal of workers. The discussions of workers’
representatives in these forums are, by and large, harmless to top management.
Advocates of the new model assessed this change as a welcoming trend and state
that the workers, who had talked to management earlier only through TU leaders,
now had a direct voice and access to information from management (Deepika 2012).
124
At the same time such discussions act as pressure exhaust valves in respect of
discontentment of workers to management. Accordingly, the model also as an
advance response system and precaution to the possible militant labour movement in
future against the new coercive participatory model.
The Director Board of the company, consisting of 11 members, has got only
one representative of the workers (KDHPCL 2015). Moreover the worker
representative was appointed only for a term of one year and thereafter substituted
with another worker. The worker representative is selected not by workers on the
basis of his/her leadership quality or capacity to represent them in the Board. The
management themselves claimed that worker representatives are selected only on the
basis of their performance in work in the preceding year. For example, Jaya
Pandiyammal, a tea plucker was appointed by the company as a member to the
Board for 2014–2015, because she was the person, who plucked the highest amount
of green tea leaves during 2013–2014.
When she was asked about her duty as Director Board member, she
answered that she attended two Board meetings. She did not know the actual
business went on, and she neither approached workers or union officials to
communicate the discussions in Board, nor the workers or union officials thought it
beneficial to approach her for collecting any information. Some top union leaders
had no knowledge of her (Jaya Pandiyammal 2015; Shaji 2015). Moreover, the
worker representative is not included in sub committees of the Board namely Audit
Committee, Executive Committee, CSR Committee and Share Transfer Committee,
whereas majority of Board members are made members of one or more committees
too (KDHPCL 2015).
Moreover, as part of the formation of the new company, the TTL could
downsize the workforce by around 50 percent through voluntary retirement schemes
and other measures. Certainly, labour has to bear that extent of hike in workload.
While many workers raised the money to buy shares by loans, the dividends and
other benefits are notably lower than that expected (Ravi Raman, 2010, p.167;
KDHPCL 2015).
125
It is a fact that true participation is not possible under capitalist mode of

production. Yet, sufficient level of participation in management even within the
framework of capitalist mode of production may help the labour movement fight for
more participation, to educate the workers with experiences of the limitation of the
present production relations and thereby mobilize them with greater vigour for later
movements. The participation ensured in the new management model of KDHPCL
is not at all sufficient to discharge the above-mentioned duties of TUs. The model
was adopted, while majority of tea estates in the nation were facing a crisis and a
great deal of them were abandoned or closed down by employers and workers were
searching for survival strategies. In such a situation, TUs at TTL Munnar might have
been forced to keep away from resistance to the new model, which was introduced
as a panacea to crisis. Moreover, they might not have had the confidence to rally
workers against the model. The weaknesses of TUs like decline in TU militancy,
strengthening of pragmatism, narrowing down of goals and consequent decline in
TU power might have been the reasons behind the issuance of consent by unions for
the participatory model. These weaknesses of labour movement will be discussed in
the following chapters.
Tea plantations in Munnar witnessed an unexpected and strong strike of

women workers in September 2015, who revealed to the rest of the world that the
plight of their living conditions under KDHPCL became worse than that in erstwhile
TATA Company, and therefore they were cheated by the ‘Participatory Model’.
Though the agitation, named as ‘Pombilai Orumai’, started as a protest against the
decision of management to slash bonus, before long it became a steady response to
the coercive strategy, allegedly hidden within polished and much hailed
‘Participatory Management Model’ of TATA Group, introduced in its tea plantations
in Munnar, and as a strong discontentment and disappointment to the growing
pragmatism and influence of anti-working class elements in conventional TUs.
Details of the movement are discussed in chapter 8 under the section ‘Gender
Variation’.
126

Development of Tu Movement in Tea Plantatons

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Development of Tu Movement in Tea Plantatons

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CHAPTER IV

DEVELOPMENT OF TU MOVEMENT IN TEA

DEVELOPMENT OF TU MOVEMENT IN TEA PLANTATONS

Writing a comprehensive history of Trade Union (TU) Movement in Kerala,

4.1. Development of TU Movement in Kerala

The abolition of slavery in Thiruvithamcore in 1855, the establishment of

The major centres of earliest TU Movement in Travancore were Alappuzha

The major activities of TU movement in the initial stage focused attention to

4.2 Initial Stages of Labour Movement in Tea Plantations

The absence of direct and open confrontations with management in early

These actions taken by the workers were a weapon of a different magnitude.

Though Bengal and Maharashtra were more politically developed regions,

4.3. Development of TU Movement in Tea Plantations

Subsequently in 1938 a meeting was convened at Mundakayam and later, at

Consequent to the above developments and under the initiation of the

The ATEWU formed 11 branches from Kulasekharam in the south to

In spite of the unfavourable conditions that prevailed in estates and planned

The Punnapra-Vayalar Movement in 1946 was a landmark in the history of

The Administrative Report of Travancore–Cochin for the year 1949–1950

The important leaders of INTUC in tea plantations of Wayanad in the initial

and N. Ganapathy led the earliest activities of INTUC in plantations in Travancore-

4.4. Planters’ Organizations and Anti-labour Union Strategies

The first planters’ organization in south India, the Waynadu Planters

Having recognized the reality of evolution of TUs, both indigenous and

The illiteracy of workers and isolated nature of plantations were

In another incident in 1940, ATEWU was conducting a meeting of workers

The isolation of labour was instrumental in keeping the workers illiterate,

In the post-Independence era, the planters became cautious of the political

The growing influence of Leftist movements and related labour movements,

In 1955, the Manager of Merchiston Estate in south Travancore hired

In the post-Independence period, native planters, especially Christian

A.P. Ninan, owner of an estate in Achankovil in Kollam district, never

4.5. Initial Stages of TU Movement in the Study Area

In the nation as a whole, the deplorable condition of newly born working

The first attempt to organize plantation workers in Central Travancore, the

K.V.Mathew Pottankulam formed the first INTUC linked union in

In 1951 AITUC established roots in Central Travancore, and in 1952 it

In 1952 UTUC made an attempt to start union activities in Central

As everywhere in India, planters in Central Travancore adopted various

It was very difficult to develop labour movement without breaking the

incident a group of UTUC workers manhandled mercilessly a Kankany in Hailberia

While the direct clashes between Management and TU activists were

phenomenon of Kerala. The Doars Planters Association (DPA), a planters’

In some plantation areas of the country, native planters were active in

consequent development of disunity and union rivalry brought about by its

4.5.1 35th Mile Strike

A significant share of middle-class people around plantations in

C.A.Kurian, a senior TU leader described an incident that occurred in

4.5.2 Incidents in Meloram Estate and Malayalam Plantation

The planters were always vigilant in preventing the interaction of outside TU

4.5.3 Police Firing at Pasumala Estate

As per the demand of various TUs, the Travancore–Cochin Government

4.5.4 Chandravanam Estate Struggle

The strike of labour against the dismissal of 83 workers of Chandravanam

On a complaint lodged by the planter, police came into the estate on 19

The Tribunal awarded that the workers should be reinstated with

4.5.5 Strike in Chemmannu Estate

The speedy growth of HEEA union affiliated to AITUC in 1950s in Semini

4.5.6 Strike in Munnar

The labour strikes in tea plantations of Kannan Devan Hills Produce

Management and decided to resume work. Accordingly major issues regarding

While the confrontation between Management and workers led by AITUC

But the version of AITUC is as follows: Actually the central TUs in