Page 178 - DMGT516_LABOUR_LEGISLATIONS

Unit 7: Dispute Resolution and Industrial Harmony

Notes
Did u know? There is no fundamental right to go on strike
In T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others (i), Justice M. B. Shah, speaking for
a Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of himself and Justice A. R. Lakshmanan, said,
"Now coming to the question of right to strike - in our view no such right exists with the
government employee."
Even as early as 1961, the Supreme Court had held in Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar
(ii) that even a very liberal interpretation of article 19 (1) (c) could not lead to the conclusion
that the trade unions have a guaranteed fundamental right to strike. In All India Bank
Employees' Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (iii - the AIBE case) also it was
contended that the right to form an association guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (c) of the
Constitution, also carried with it the concomitant right to strike for otherwise the right to
form association would be rendered illusory. The Supreme Court rejected this construction
of the Constitution: "to read each guaranteed right as involving the concomitant right
necessary to achieve the object which might be supposed to underlie the grant of each of
such rights, for such a construction would, by ever expanding circles in the shape of rights
concomitant to concomitant right and so on, lead to an almost grotesque result."
It was a culmination of the ratios of the Kameshwar Prasad and the A.I.B.E. cases that
resulted in the decision in the highly contentious Rangarajan case. In reliance of these
judgments, the Apex court was correct in opining that there exists no fundamental right to
strike. But in stating that Government employees have no "legal, moral or equitable
right", the Court has evolved a new industrial jurisprudence unthought of earlier. It is true
that the judgments mentioned above have rejected the right to strike as a fundamental
right, but not as a legal, moral or equitable right. The question of 'strike' not being a
statutory or a legal right has never even been considered in the court. Further the expression
'no moral or equitable right' was uncalled for. A court of law is concerned with legal and
constitutional issues and not with issues of morality and equity.
The Rangarajan case simply ignores statutory provisions in the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 and the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and an equal number of case laws laid down by larger
benches that have recognized the right to strike. It also fails to consider International
Covenants that pave the way for this right as a basic tenet of international labour standards.
This has been finally decided by Supreme Court of India 2003 in T.K. Rangarajan vs. Govt. of
Tamil Nadu that Strike is not a fundamental right.

However, it may be noted that the industrial workmen have been given this privilege of going
on strike in negative and indirect way in Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore for industrial
workman right to strike is a legal right after observing some conditions stipulated in the Act.

General Prohibition of Strikes (Sec. 23)

No group of workman may strike in the following five situations:
1. When conciliation is going on before a Board of Conciliation an seven days thereafter.
2. When adjudication is going on before a Labour Court or Tribunal and two months
thereafter.
3. When and if an appropriate Government in its reference prohibits the continuance of any
strike.
4. When arbitration is going on before an arbitrator and two months thereafter.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 173