Surat’s embroidery sector is facing a fresh labour mobilisation call after union representative Ajay Dubey urged workers to consider a “Gaon Chalo Andolan”, barely a day after an earlier protest was withdrawn following a labour department directive on compliance with labour codes.
The immediate de-escalation followed a circular from the labour department directing embroidery unit owners to comply with labour codes. Workers subsequently called off a protest scheduled for October 1. However, the truce began to weaken after Dubey said several workers had reported that employers were unwilling to implement the department’s instructions or address their labour-related concerns.
In a video message that circulated on social media, Dubey outlined several possible courses of action for workers. With Diwali and the Chhathi Mayia festival approaching, he asked workers to consider returning to their villages for at least two months. He also urged them to submit individual complaints to labour authorities, including details of employers who were allegedly not complying with the department’s directives.
Dubey further called on workers working across different shifts to act collectively, meet management representatives and seek clarity on how the labour department’s circular would be implemented. If employers refused to comply, he asked workers to file formal complaints. He said workers should continue working in units that implemented labour codes and consider moving to workplaces that were willing to comply with the regulations.
The union representative also suggested that workers could leave the embroidery industry for other employment if the measures failed to address their concerns. He argued that a labour shortage could make employers more responsive to workers’ demands. Dubey additionally called on workers to stop machines on Sundays and protest if employers denied paid weekly offs.
The developments place labour compliance at the centre of uncertainty in Surat’s embroidery industry, where production depends on large numbers of workers and shift-based operations. The labour department’s circular had created an initial basis for resolving the dispute, but the latest mobilisation call indicates that sections of the workforce do not believe the instructions are being implemented consistently.
The response among workers has not been uniform. While Dubey’s message has received support from sections of the workforce, some workers have criticised what they described as frequent and differing calls for action. They said the changing instructions had created confusion about the future course of the agitation.
The immediate next steps outlined in the union message are for workers to approach labour authorities with individual complaints, seek clarification from management and protest over denied weekly offs where necessary. The department’s earlier circular remains the formal instruction governing the compliance dispute reported in the sector.
