The right to strike is a critical tool for workers to negotiate better wages, working conditions, and protect their rights through collective bargaining. In India, this right is not absolute and is subject to statutory regulations and judicial interpretations. This article explores the legal position of the right to strike in India, analyzing its constitutional, statutory, and judicial dimensions, along with its implications for workers and employers.
Constitutional Framework
The Constitution of India, under Article 19(1)(c), guarantees the fundamental right to form associations or unions, which implicitly supports the formation of trade unions. However, the right to strike is not expressly recognized as a fundamental right. The Supreme Court, in cases like Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1958) and All India Bank Employees Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (1961), has consistently held that the right to strike is not a fundamental right but a legal right, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state.
The right to protest, however, is protected under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(b) (freedom to assemble peacefully), but strikes are distinguished from protests as they involve cessation of work, impacting industrial production and societal interests. The judiciary has emphasized that strikes must be exercised sparingly as a “weapon of last resort” to avoid undue hardship to society.
Statutory Provisions
The right to strike is primarily governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA), now subsumed under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. Key provisions include:
- Definition of Strike: Section 2(q) of the IDA defines a strike as a “cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination, or a concerted refusal, or a refusal under a common understanding, to continue to work or accept employment.”
- Legal and Illegal Strikes: Sections 22, 23, and 24 of the IDA outline conditions for a legal strike. For instance, in public utility services, workers must provide 14 days’ advance notice before striking, and strikes during conciliation or arbitration proceedings are prohibited. Non-compliance renders a strike illegal.
- Consequences of Illegal Strikes: Participation in an illegal strike constitutes misconduct, potentially leading to dismissal after a domestic inquiry. Workers are generally not entitled to wages during illegal strikes, as established in Bank of India v. T.S. Kelawala (1990).
The Trade Unions Act, 1926, under Sections 18 and 19, provides limited immunity to registered trade unions from civil liability during strikes, further recognizing the right to strike as a statutory right.
Judicial Interpretations
The Indian judiciary has shaped the legal position of the right to strike through landmark judgments:
- All India Bank Employees Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (1961): The Supreme Court clarified that the right to strike is not absolute and can be restricted by industrial legislation, emphasizing that trade unions do not have a guaranteed right to effective collective bargaining or strikes under Article 19(1)(c).
- B.R. Singh v. Union of India (1990): The Court recognized the right to strike as a legitimate tool for workers to voice grievances, but reiterated it is not a fundamental right. It emphasized that strong trade unions enhance bargaining power, and strikes are a form of demonstration.
- T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2003): This controversial judgment held that government employees have no legal or moral right to strike, leading to the dismissal of 170,000 striking employees. Critics argue this ruling overlooked statutory provisions in the IDA and international obligations, placing undue restrictions on strikes.
- Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak (1994): The Court clarified that workers are entitled to wages during a legal and justified strike, reinforcing the distinction between legal and illegal strikes.
The judiciary has also distinguished between strikes and bandhs (general shutdowns). In Bharat Kumar v. State of Kerala (1997), the Kerala High Court declared bandhs unconstitutional, as they infringe on citizens’ fundamental rights, unlike strikes, which are regulated by law.
International Obligations
India is a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which, under Article 8(1)(d), recognizes the right to strike, subject to national laws. The International Labour Organization (ILO) also considers the right to strike integral to collective bargaining. Despite these obligations, India has not elevated the right to strike to a fundamental right, citing the need to balance workers’ rights with economic stability and public interest.
Challenges and Criticisms
- Economic Impact: Strikes, especially illegal ones, disrupt production and can deter foreign investment, affecting India’s economy. The judiciary and legislature emphasize using strikes as a last resort to minimize such impacts.
- Government Employees: The blanket ban on strikes by government employees, as seen in the T.K. Rangarajan case, is contentious. Critics argue it undermines workers’ rights and ignores the socio-economic context of their grievances.
- Wage Deductions: The “no work, no pay” principle, upheld in cases like Crompton Greaves v. Workmen (1978), discourages strikes, as workers risk losing wages, particularly during illegal or unjustified strikes.
- Ambiguity in Judicial Approach: The judiciary’s case-by-case approach to determining the legality and justifiability of strikes creates uncertainty, discouraging workers from exercising this right.
Conclusion
The right to strike in India is a statutory right, not a fundamental one, governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and subject to judicial oversight. While it is a vital tool for collective bargaining, its exercise is limited by statutory conditions and economic considerations. The judiciary’s nuanced approach seeks to balance workers’ rights with societal interests, but inconsistencies in rulings create challenges. Aligning domestic laws with international obligations and providing clearer guidelines could enhance the effectiveness of this right while safeguarding India’s economic stability.
Contributed By : Sonam Rawat (Intern)