This is the third in a series of articles on the recent protest by industrial workers in Noida for higher wages and improved working conditions. The series analyses what happened before and after April 13, the state and industry’s response and the conditions of work that provide the context. The report is based on ground reporting – interviews by the authors and independent media coverage. Read the first, second and fourth articles in this series.What is often forgotten in the rush to criminalise the April 13 mass protest is that it had followed two-three days of peaceful protests by factory workers which the administration had tried to break.On April 11, the police picked up four activists associated with a workers’ solidarity group, Mazdoor Bigul Dasta, from Noida’s Botanical Garden Metro Station. These included Rupesh Rai, Akriti, Srishti and Manisha. This solidarity group had been bringing out a monthly newsletter, Mazdoor Bigul, centered on workers, aimed at raising the capacity of workers to understand the issues that concern them.Witnesses reported that male police officers (some in plainclothes) forcibly dragged the activists into a vehicle without providing grounds for arrest, without female officers present. The police initially maintained lack of official knowledge regarding the detentions, but in days following the arrest, they claimed them to be the “masterminds” of the Noida protest. Officials said that the activists were part of a “well-orchestrated syndicate”. They alleged that the group created WhatsApp groups on April 9-10 to incite workers and coordinate violence.The detainees were eventually charged under sections related to criminal conspiracy, obstructing public officials and inciting violence and, a month later, one of them was slapped with charges under the National Security Act, 1980. Four of the activists were sent to 15-day judicial custody. When two advocates, Prateek Kumar and Mohd Tanveer Ali, went to Surajpur Court on April 12, to locate and secure legal remedies for the activists, they said, police personnel manhandled, abused and threatened them at the court, then took them into custody. Both lawyers were released late the same night from an undisclosed location.Police Commissioner Laxmi Singh claimed they have evidence of a Pakistan hand in the so-called conspiracy and that the role of urban Naxals was not ruled out. On April 18, another alleged mastermind behind the labour unrest, Aditya Anand, was arrested from Tamil Nadu’s Tiruchirappalli railway station by the Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force. According to police, Anand, along with Rupesh Rai and Manisha, allegedly mobilised and instigated workers.More activists were arrested from Delhi and Lucknow, alleging connections to the labour protest. Two spokespersons of the Rashtriya Janta Dal (RJD), Priyanka Bharti and Dr Kanchan Yadav, were also booked for allegedly sharing a ‘misleading video’ from Madhya Pradesh and not the Noida worker’s protest.State response: meetings, assurances and wage revisionOn Sunday, April 12, the Noida administration convened a quick huddle to review the workers’ demands. Media reports said that District Magistrate (DM) Medha Roopam met the state’s Principal Secretary (Labour), the Labour Commissioner, Noida Authority CEO Krushna Karunesh, Police Commissioner Laxmi Singh and other officials.In an official statement posted on X, the DM said the same day (Sunday) that the meeting focused on “protection of workers’ interests”, double overtime pay, bonuses, weekly holidays and workplace safety. She urged workers to return to work peacefully, saying their demands had been met.These assurances didn’t calm the anger – they sharpened it. On April 13, workers walked out, saying overtime payments and welfare promises were just patchwork; what they needed was a higher basic wage. On April 14, the Uttar Pradesh government announced a 21% interim revision to minimum wages for workers in the Noida-Ghaziabad region.These revised monthly wages – unskilled Rs 13,690, semi-skilled Rs 15,059 and skilled Rs 16,868 – were to be applicable from April 1, 2026.The state administration’s response to the protests had an intriguing two-track approach. One track made limited concessions that appeared to acknowledge the legitimacy of workers’ grievances, leading to the April 14 notification of a 21% increase in minimum wages – though still well below what many workers were demanding – and the promised scrutiny of workplace conditions. The government also announced the formation of a high-level committee to establish dialogue with stakeholders and maintain “industrial harmony and law and order.”A protest held at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi on May 14, 2026, by CaRWAN (Campaign for the Release of Workers and Activists of Noida), against the NSA charges on journalist Satyam Verma and activist Akriti Choudhary. Photo: By arrangement.Yet these measures were not directed simply at meeting the protesting workers’ legitimate demands. They were accompanied by a parallel effort to redefine the meaning of their protest itself: to shift it from a collective action rooted in abysmally low wages, poor working conditions and workplace abuse into a matter of conspiracy, disorder and threat to the state government.This second track was especially visible in Chief Minister Adityanath’s public remarks. Even while declaring that his government “stands with workers” and promising “protection to every worker” along with “proper remuneration”, he simultaneously argued that attempts were being made to disturb an atmosphere of development and peace through conspiracy.In the same breath as he declared pro-worker benefits, the protest was linked not only to “urban Naxals” but also to possible outside forces, including Pakistani elements allegedly seeking to destabilise India. The significance of this pairing lay in what it accomplished politically: workers could be verbally reassured with welfare, while their protest is stripped of legitimacy and recast as a vehicle for hidden actors. The aim, in other words, was not merely to pacify discontented workers, but to contain their discontent within a narrative in which the state remained the protector of workers even as their mobilisation was rendered suspect and criminalised.This framing was reinforced by Uttar Pradesh labour minister Anil Rajbhar, who described the violence as a “well-planned conspiracy” aimed at disrupting both development and “law and order”. He said agencies were examining a possible Pakistan link and referred to recent arrests of suspected terrorists in Meerut and Noida with alleged connections to Pakistani handlers.In doing so, the protest was placed beyond the industrial sphere, alongside a wider register of instability, anti-national threat and sabotage. His suggestion that the unrest may also have been timed to disrupt official programmes of the state leadership further indicated that the government was painting the episode not simply as an eruption of labour anger, but as an event with political implications that touched the prestige, authority and developmental image of the regime.Adityanath then pushed this line further by warning that the protests could form part of an attempt to revive Naxalism, even as he said that the Maoist insurgency itself was near elimination. After chairing a high-level review, he said some protests may have involved misleading and disruptive elements and insisted that only “genuine workers” should be allowed in negotiations, on the grounds that outside actors often infiltrate such movements by posing as labour representatives.He also directed officials to strengthen intelligence networks in industrial areas, maintain strict vigilance and take the strongest possible action against those accused of inciting disorder. Read together, these steps suggest that the government sought something more than the restoration of calm in the immediate aftermant. Its simultaneously offered limited relief and sought to discipline workers who could legitimately speak on behalf of other workers. It folded the workers’ protest into a larger framework of surveillance, security and political control.Aftermath: a mysterious committee, recommendations and repressionOn the very day of the mass protest, April 13, media reports said the state government had constituted a high-level committee to address labour demands. According to these reports, the committee included senior officials from the labour, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, and industrial departments along with industry representatives. Officials also claimed that discussions with workers had already been held that same day.By the evening, the administration announced a package of measures – compulsory weekly days off, double overtime pay, annual bonuses before November 30, timely wage disbursal, medical cover, improved workplace facilities and an interim minimum-wage revision that would later be described as a 21% hike in Gautam Buddh Nagar and Ghaziabad.Yet the speed of this sequence raises doubts about its implementation. No clear public explanation was offered as to how the committee had been constituted, what its precise terms of reference were, which workers had been consulted, how those workers were identified or on what basis such wide-ranging recommendations could have been formulated and endorsed within a matter of hours.Clearly, it was meant to project state responsiveness and even magnanimity at a moment of crisis, but without the transparency necessary to establish whether the process was representative, deliberative or even accountable. The haste with which relief was announced suggested that the government was not only seeking to quell workers’ anger, but also to quickly regain narrative control: to present itself as benevolent and decisive even as the institutional basis of its intervention remained opaque.Legal and economic basis for wage determinationThe determination of minimum wages in Uttar Pradesh involves statutory considerations that hinge on economic factors. Under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, wages are reviewed periodically, taking into account the all-India consumer price index (CPI). The variable dearness allowance (VDA) is directly tied to fluctuations in CPI, to ensure that real wages do not lose value due to inflation.The 2026 notification was to cover up for the delays in wage revisions that ought to have been conducted at regular intervals. The base minimum wages for the majority of industries in Uttar Pradesh were previously revised in 2014, meaning that the state went over a decade without a core base-rate adjustment. Under the Minimum Wages Act, comprehensive base revisions were legally due in 2019 and 2024 based on CPI point accumulation. The state failed to execute them, resulting in wage stagnation until the emergency intervention in April. While the state government updated the VDA component periodically to account for immediate inflation, the foundational base wage had not seen a structural overhaul since 2014.The CPI, for instance, increased to an average of 425 by 2025 when compared to the previous index of 216. In other words, the present revision is aimed at responding to current economic realities while rectifying a long-standing problem in previous years. The framework also finds its place in the larger scheme of the Code on Wages, 2019. While this code aims to update and modernise wage regulations in India, it also provides legal support to the existing tri-level categorisation of minimum wages. It gives state governments the authority to fix differential minimum wages, taking into consideration regional variations, cost of living and type of employment.April 15: Factory management calls workers, hands them over to policeAfter the wage hike was announced, factories were instructed to prominently display the revised rates at entrances and call workers back to work. Several family members of workers told us that their relatives received calls from company Human Resource asking them to return. When they did, they were handed over to the police, already waiting at the factory.Companies also gave names of the protesting workers to police. Ms X, 22, who had not reported for work out of fear, was picked up from her home at 3 pm on April 15. She is lodged in Kasna’s Luksar Jail with three other women workers, their bail application pending even after completing one month in custody. Her poor mother described to us the hardships they were facing following her arrest – the mounting costs of commuting for mulaqat, appearance for court hearings, filing bail, paying court fees, the labour days lost, the stigma and hardships her daughter was facing in prison.The arrest of workers continued and according to the estimates of legal teams looking at different FIRs, over one thousand workers had been under detention/arrested by the end of April.‘Industries Police Cell’ to securitise labour relationsOn April 27, the Gautam Buddh Nagar Police Commissionerate officially announced the creation of a dedicated Industries Police Cell, allegedly to maintain direct communication with industrial units, labour unions and workers. It was claimed that the cell was designed to address grievances and monitor law and order. Headed by an ad hoc deputy commissioner of police (DCP – Industries), the cell is supported by an assistant commissioner of police (ACP), three inspectors and 25 personnel of various ranks.The core responsibilities of the cell include facilitating continuous dialogue with factory owners, trade unions and worker groups; proactively addressing industrial disputes and managing worker grievances; ensuring compliance with both Uttar Pradesh state and Central government labour laws and coordinating inter-departmental efforts (such as with the labour department) and managing zone-specific industrial law and order.It is difficult to imagine why a police cell is needed to maintain communication when there is a state labour department and mandatory grievance redressal committees and works committees to facilitate dialogue between employers and workers. It only points to the securitised approach to labour relations.Industry pushback: Overtime scrapped, two-shift model announcedIndustry associations were quick to protest the measures announced by the government, especially the 21% wage hike. The entrepreneurs association spokesperson said that it will set a “wrong precedent” that anyone can extract a hike by protesting for a few days. They said that the increase in labour costs would negatively affect businesses and industry environment in the state.A few days later, the Noida Entrepreneurs Association (NEA) held a press conference to announce that industrial units in the district had decided to scrap overtime and introduce a two-shift system, saying it was to reduce the financial burden of overtime expenses announced by the government.The two-shift model would start on May 1 and, under it, the first shift would run from 6:00 am to 2:00 pm and the second shift from 2:00 pm to 10:00 pm. Instead of assigning overtime to existing workers, production would continue through an additional shift, they said, saying it would create new employment opportunities. Earlier, workers would get up to 4 hours overtime, but now, they would work a full 8-hour shift, leading to fresh hiring.Recruitment has already started in several units, Sudhir Srivastava, vice president of the Noida Entrepreneurs Association said. He also said that an industry delegation was scheduled to meet the chief minister in Lucknow.May Day: Quiet streets, continued clampdownOn May 1, Labour Day, Noida stayed quiet. No big protest calls. No crowds. Only CITU announced two gate meetings. Most factories were shut and police were out in force. Noida awoke to Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – no gatherings of more than five were allowed from April 30 to May 8 across Gautam Buddh Nagar.Drones flew overhead in Noida, as CCTVs monitored industrial units, main crossings, choke points, etc. The commissionerate was carved up under a ‘Zonal-Sector Scheme’ of 11 zones, 49 sectors. Noida: 4 zones/16 sectors. Central Noida: 3/24. Greater Noida: 4/9. Officials said reinforcements were brought in from other districts. The roster included:6 police officers of superintendent rank; 14 additional superintendents; 30 circle officers65 police inspectors; 400 sub-inspectors (including 150 women sub-inspectors)900 police constables (including 200 women constables)10 companies of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC)The state mobilised command on top: two Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), three additional DCPs, four Assistant Commissioners of Police. Large police teams were posted at big industrial units, multinational factories and at smaller industrial clusters. Mobile patrols circled the zones. Loudspeakers kept repeating the rules.In a control room, a gazetted officer watched through CCTV and other feeds, as though the city were bracing for invasion rather than for workers marking the day that bears their history. The securitised bandobast was not improvised in haste; it was announced in advance, shared with the media on April 30 and reproduced the next day across major newspapers. The state wanted the numbers seen.It was never only about “law and order”. It was theatre in the old, authoritarian sense: intimidation staged via uniforms, barricades, patrol routes, surveillance and public announcements. First, demonstrate control. Then let control be seen. Let it settle on the ground as anticipation, as caution, as fear. Noida was made to resemble an emergency zone on May Day. What was being secured was not public peace but a message that no dissent would be allowed.The over-preparedness was a disproportionate response: it suggested that any collective worker presence contained a criminal possibility to be dealt with an iron hand.Throughout May 1, DM Roopam visited different sites, announcing welfare measures for workers. This included a major healthcare blitz – 201 Shramik Arogya Camps for medical outreach inside industrial belts and labour settlements; free medical treatment up to primary, secondary and tertiary levels to workers and their families across 134 government wellness centres and 67 private multi-super-specialty hospitals; state-of-the-art medical buses and 25 mobile medical vans (‘chief minister’s health raths’) offering diagnostic services like X-rays, dental surgery and cancer screening to workers; mammography and breast screening for women workers, paediatric care and free cataract surgeries. The drive included the distribution of 3 lakh sanitary pads, 25 health ATMs and free prescription spectacles.Roopam laid foundation stones for telemedicine facilities at 44 locations, and announced plans to establish dispensaries and ambulance rooms at 79 industrial units and ordered factories to introduce daycare and feeding rooms for the children of employees. The mai-baap sarkar was in action. Full-page government advertisements in major dailies on May Day completed the composition. The state declared Labour Day “Shramveer Gaurav Samaroh 2026”.The Uttar Pradesh government flooded newspapers on May 1, 2026, with welfare publicity and ‘rebranded’ International Day of Labour as Shramveer Gaurav Samaroh (Ceremony Honouring Labour Heroes), while Gautam Budh streets remained silent on the day. Photo: Invest UP web site.At the same time, more activists were arrested and stringent sections added to existing FIRs, making it difficult for those incarcerated to access bail. It was benevolence on paper, coercion on the ground: this is how the modern developmental state speaks. It congratulates itself in the language of welfare while surrounding workers with the structure of discipline and incarceration.It asks citizens to be patient, work quietly and trust the promise of growth. The worker may fuel factories and exhaust her life in service; but if she speaks in common with others, she is no longer a labouring subject but a possible threat. That is the obscenity at the heart of this arrangement: capital is permitted noise, expansion and endless claims on land, bodies, time and policy, while labour is asked to stay ‘disciplined’ and endure in silence, maintaining the peace of the graveyard.Throughout the days of workers protests, the Uttar Pradesh chief minister, the police commissioner, the SDM kept repeating: “Yeh ek shantipurna district hai, ismey shanti banaye rakhein (this is a peaceful district, maintain peace here)”.Navsharan Singh is an independent researcher and activist. Atul Sood teaches at the Jawaharlal Nehru University. Rakhi Sehgal is an independent labour researcher with over two decades of association with the trade union movement.