In 30 years of struggle, SEWA has faced many obstacles. During this struggle, SEWA realised that the workers of the informal sector, to which it belongs, are not recognised as ‘workers’. When laws are enacted or policy is made, the issues, problems, and difficulties of the workers of the informal sector are not considered. Most especially, the problems, difficulties and issues of women workers are totally ignored. Many a times, SEWA has made representations that whenever issues of labour are discussed, the voice of the workers from the informal sector should also be heard.  SEWA was told that because SEWA is not a central trade union (CTU), it could not be called for meetings relating to the policies or laws, or to the Indian Labour Conference held every year.

In 2002, the Government of India issued a public notification inviting applications from all the unions that wanted to be verified as a CTU. The rule for recognition as a CTU is that the union should have a membership of more than 500,000, should be working in at least four states and in at least four industries including agriculture.

In 2002, SEWA had a membership of 6,89,551 in seven states — Gujarat, Bihar, Rajasthan, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Kerala and was working in 14 industries including agriculture. Of the total membership, two-thirds belong to the agriculture industry. As SEWA fulfilled all the conditions, it applied for verification with the Central Labour and Employment Ministry.

SEWA’s application was rejected by the Chief Labour Commissioner. The reason given for rejecting the application was that SEWA has members in only 3 states. The Joint Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) in his letter to SEWA dated 4 August 2004 stated, “The standing committee in its meeting held on 31 May 2004 has observed that your organisation does not fulfill the basic criteria for recognition as a Central Trade Union organisation because your affiliated unions including yours are registered only in three states. Hence your membership claim is not accepted for General Verification.” The reasoning by the Chief Labour Commissioner was absolutely wrong.

SEWA was told by a senior government official that the Standing Committee comprising existing CTUs had also considered the application. They too felt that SEWA should not be recognised as a CTU. However, they could not find any grounds for keeping SEWA out; the only argument that they could find was a technical one. The argument they made was that a CTU has to have members in four or more states, which SEWA has. However, the Standing Committee argued that this means not only should SEWA have worker-members in 4 states but SEWA should be registered in four states. Such a condition had never been made before and was especially brought in to keep SEWA out.

As there was no option left, SEWA was constrained to file a case in the Delhi High Court on 13 October 2004. Smt. Indira Jaising was the Senior Counsel who appeared for SEWA. She explained the case to the Justice and showed that SEWA fulfills all the conditions for becoming a CTU organisation, and read the order of the CLC. The Justice issued a show cause notice to the respondents (Respondent no.1 — Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, and Respondent no. 2 — Chief Labour Commissioner of India, of Labour and Employment). The case was listed for hearing on 18 January 2005. The respondents did not file their reply; therefore, the case was listed for hearing on 2 October 2005.

On that day, the senior counsel referred to the merits of the case, read the prior order of the CLC, and stated that SEWA fulfills all the conditions to become CTU Organisation and showed the evidence to the Justice. She also showed the Certificate of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions, Gujarat, showing that SEWA is working in seven states and has a membership of 6,89,551.

The main contention raised by the Honorable Justice was that the condition for becoming a CTU required only that the membership of the union be spread over four states. Nowhere in the conditions is it written that the union must have its affiliates registered in the four states. The Honorable Justice asked the respondents to show the clause in the conditions for becoming a CTU, in which it is specifically mentioned that the affiliates of the unions should be in the four states. The respondents were unable to cite such a clause in the conditions. They were only able show the condition that the membership of the union was to be spread over four states, which is a condition that was very much was fulfilled by SEWA. The Honorable Justice also asked the respondents why they did not want a reputable union like SEWA to be declared a CTU. SEWA had much to contribute to the society at large. The respondents did not have any answer, and said that they were ready to welcome SEWA. The Justice gave the judgment in SEWA’s favour, stating that the verification should be complete in four weeks. The case remained pending until the verification was confirmed by the Courts.

The case came up for hearing on 12 May 2005. The respondents asked for more time, stating that they could not complete the verification in the short time given. The Justice granted them additional time of three months.

The case came up again for hearing on 25 October 2005; the respondents filed a counter affidavit stating the total membership of the CTU organisations, membership of unorganised sector workers in CTU organisations, and membership of agricultural workers. The respondents claimed that they had to verify all the trade unions together, and could not verify the membership of SEWA individually. They also claimed that even if they verified the membership of SEWA, SEWA would not get the representation as representation is allotted pro-rata. The Senior Counsel of SEWA noted that the Justice had ordered the verification of SEWA alone. The Court asked the respondent to explain during the next date for hearing, the procedure for verification, and told them to submit the schedule stating the percentage membership to be verified for SEWA and in what time. SEWA also asked respondents to state SEWA’s verification status. The respondents stated that SEWA is taken in the Standing Committee. SEWA counter-argued whether SEWA had been taken in the standing committee for the limited purpose of verification, or SEWA enjoyed full rights as member. The Court asked the respondents why a contempt of court order against the Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and Employment should not be issued for not completing the verification within the stipulated time. The court set the next hearing for 13 December 2005.

On 13 December 2005, the respondents stated that the verification process would be finished by October 2007. The respondents said that they would complete the verification of SEWA by Dec 2006. SEWA agreed because the verification process had already started. The case was then disposed of. However, the Court gave SEWA leave to approach the Court again in case of difficulties.

The Central Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner is in charge of the verification process. Verification of the membership of SEWA was completed after the physical verification of the records, including membership books, list, receipts, registers of the membership and the trade union certificate of SEWA and its affiliate unions. Membership details such as names and addresses were to be given in the soft copy and the print out in sets of eight. Moreover, spot verification of the members of SEWA in all states in which there are members was undertaken. For this, the Central Regional Commissioner along with his assistants visited specified areas, villages and cities where SEWA had its affiliated unions. They met its members and verified them personally.  The spot verification is made on 0.5 per cent of the membership.

Although the date for completion of verification set by the Court is long over, SEWA is still waiting for the results of the verification.