By Dr. Gyan Pathak
India once again restricted Central Trade Union’s delegates to attend the 114th Session of the International Labour Conference (1-12 June 2026) organized by the International Laobur Organization (ILO) at Geneva, Switzerland. The country has been adopting this policy of restriction since 2018, and the ILO’s Credentials Committee has been asking India to stop it because it was against the Constitution of the ILO. The issue was again raised this year, and the Credentials Committee asked India to rescind restrictions.
In the Second Report of the Credentials Committee was part of the record of proceedings on June 11, 2026. According to the report, the Credentials Committee received an objection presented by nine workers’ organizations – AICCTU, AITUC, AIUTUC, CITU, HMS, INTUC, LPF, TUCC, UTUC – concerning the composition of the Workers’ delegation of India to the present session of the Conference.
The submitted objection stated that since 2018, the Government had imposed restrictions on the nomination of workers’ representatives to the International Labour Conference by limiting the number of times an individual may participate in the Conference. According to the objection, these restrictions were maintained for the present session, despite previous conclusions of the Credentials Committee, and interfered with the right of workers’ organizations to nominate their representatives in full independence.
The objecting organizations further alleged that representative workers’ organizations, including the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC), were once again excluded from the Workers’ delegation, as well as, for the first time, the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU).
The objecting organizations contended that the nomination process was incompatible with articles 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) of the ILO Constitution and requested the Committee to take appropriate measures in this regard.
The Committee also received a separate objection from the CITU, supported by the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), in relation to its exclusion from the Workers’ delegation and alleging that it had not been consulted on its composition despite its representative status.
The Government of India, once again explained that the restrictions introduced in 2018, limiting the number of times an individual may be nominated as a delegate or adviser, were intended to promote broader participation and provide greater opportunities for new representatives to attend the Conference.
The Government stated that the nomination of the Workers’ delegation for 2026had been carried out in accordance with the standard operating procedure adopted by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, the stated objective of which is to ensure the due representation of the most representative workers’ organizations in the Indian delegation through an objective, transparent and inclusive process.
The Government explained that, in view of prevailing security, travel and logistical concerns, it had taken an administrative decision to reduce the size of the tripartite delegation and consequently to limit the number of representatives from each constituent group.
According to the Government, communications were issued on 4 May 2026 to workers’ organizations inviting nominations for the Workers’ delegation.
The Government stated that the position of Workers’ delegate was allocated to the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), while the adviser positions were distributed among representative workers’ organizations.
The Government further indicated that INTUC had not been considered because of ongoing litigation concerning the leadership of the organization. As regards CITU, the Government stated that, having regard to the limited number of places available, preference had been accorded to organizations that had historically enjoyed less representation in the delegation, including the National Front of Indian Trade Unions-Dhanbad (NFITU-DHN), with a view to promoting broader participation among smaller organizations.
Nevertheless, the Credentials Committee recalling such restrictions was not agreed to by the most representative trade union organizations in the past, it regretted India’s decision to continue with the policy.
The Committee emphasized that governments must accept the nominations made by the most representative workers’ and employers ‘organizations and that any refusal to do so is incompatible with the obligations under article 3(5) of the ILO Constitution.
The Credentials Committee once again urged the Government of India to take the necessary steps to rescind these restrictions without delay and to ensure that future Workers’ delegations are nominated in full conformity with the Constitution and in complete independence from government interference.
The Committee noted from the information provided by the Government that it had requested nominations for the Workers’ delegation from the first 8 of the 13 workers’ organizations identified in the latest membership verification exercise, with the exception of INTUC and CITU which respectively held the second and fifth places.
In relation to INTUC, this is the sixth time that the Committee has been called upon to examine its exclusion from the Workers’ delegation, the matter having risen from an internal conflict in the organization.
While recalling its consistent line of jurisprudence that where a matter centres on an internal conflict within an organization, it lacks jurisdiction to examine the dispute, the Committee once again calls upon the Government to redouble its efforts and seek the factions’ specific agreement on the designation of a common representative for inclusion in the Workers’ delegation to future sessions of the Conference.
As regards the exclusion of CITU from the Workers’ delegation, the Committee noted that the Government does not dispute CITU’s status as one of the representative central trade union organizations in the country, nor did it provide information demonstrating that consultations had been undertaken with CITU concerning the composition of the Workers’ delegation.
The Committee recalled that, where several representative organizations exist, the Government must seek to reach agreement among them and, failing such agreement, must rely on objective and verifiable criteria in determining representation.
In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee was not convinced that the exclusion of allegedly representative trade unions, according to the Government’s last membership verification exercise, was consistent with the objective of ensuring the representation of the most representative workers’ organizations.
The Committee therefore urged the Government to ensure that future Workers’ delegations are nominated in full conformity with article 3(5) of the Constitution and that all of the most representative workers’ organizations are duly consulted in that process so as to achieve agreement on the nomination of the Workers’ delegation. (IPA Service)
