By: Prem Joseph - 12020841152 Shraddha Verma - 12020841166 Shubhika Lal - 12020841169

AIADMK (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) State Government eroded the pensions and other rights of the government employees in their state. The strike was a product of resistance against this action Started on 2nd July 2003 by the Unions affiliated to INTUC, CITU, AITUC, HMS, LPF. Approximately 90% of the public sector workforce, i.e., close to a million workers went on strike Chief Minister Jayalalithaa rammed through and emergency amendment on July 4, this gave her the power to dismiss strikers and to impose fines and jail terms an anyone found guilty of striking or instigating a strike

Over the next few days, almost 200,000 workers were sacked. Workers not only lost their jobs, in many cases their houses as well. This resulted into a lot of protests where the police made arrests. A total of 2211 detentions On July 11, the TN High Court dismissed legal petitions to overturn the sackings on the grounds that the workers had not sought reinstatement through the State Administrative Tribunal a body consisting of one judge already inundated with cases. The High Court agreed to only one point of the petitions: the release of those who had been arrested.

When the strike ended and no broad campaign against the sackings, the Indian Supreme Court seized on the opportunity to establish a far-reaching precedent. On July 24, a panel of two judges declared that employees did not have any fundamental right to strike and that such illegal strikes had to be dealt with firmly by authorities. It suggested, but did not order, that the state government reinstate the sacked workers, provided that they offered an unconditional apology. Following the reinstatement of some 165,000 workers, the Supreme Court brought down its final judgment on August 6 which dismissed the challenge to the ESMA law and declared that employees had no fundamental, legal, moral or equitable right to strike.

In a 21-page ruling thoroughly permeated with hostility to the working class, the judges declared: No political party or organisation can claim a right to paralyse the economic and industrial activities of a state or nation or inconvenience citizens. After stating that strike action was mostly misused, they sugge sted that, for redressing grievances, employees should do more work honestly, diligently and effectively to impress their employer. On August 12, Chief Minister Jayalalithaa began steps to deregister 26 major trade unions and other 200 affiliated unions. Recognition of the JACTO and COTA federations was withdrawn. More than 6,000 dismissed workers accused of violence and instigating others to strike have not been reinstated and are to be dragged before a panel of three retired judges from the Madras High Court.

The Courts have also relied on the principle that each persons fundamental rights cannot be exercised in a manner that unduly interferes with the rights and freedoms of other citizen. In 1998 the Kerala High Court observed as follows:There cannot be any doubt that the fundamental rights of the people as a whole cannot be subservient to the claim of fundamental right of an individual or only a section for the people. The Kerala High Court went on to say: No political party or organization can claim that it is entitled to paralyze the industry and commerce in the entire State or nation. In Tamil Nadu, the Government Servants Rules of 1973 expressly prohibited government servants in the State from engaging in strikes or inciting others to do so.

Strong comments about the justification for having the strike by The All India State Government Federation. To view the page, CLICK HERE
The All India State Government Employees Federation notes with deep

concern and anguish that the Division Bench of Supreme Court of the country by their verdict on 21 July03 has not only upheld the arbitrary dismissal of about two hundred thousand state government employees and teachers who took part in the state-wide strike beginning on 2 July03, but highly justified the most autocratic repressive measures of the Tamilnadu Government by terming the strike illegal and stating that the Jayalalitha Government has sent a tough message that maladministration can be caused in this way. This is most unfortunate and obviously a open support for the most vindictive action against the employees and teachers by the political leadership of the Government and the bureaucracy to suppress a justified collective action by the employees and teachers for redressal of their grievances when all other means of negotiated settlement failed.

 Legal Action taken

No Fundamental right to strike No legal/ statutory right o strike No moral or equitable justification to strike

The working class has indisputably earned the right to strike as an industrial action after a long struggle, so much so that the relevant industrial legislation recognizes it as their implied right. A worker has no other means of defending her/his real wage other than seeking an increased money wage. When they strike work, it is not the authorities who suffer a loss of income or disruption of their income generating process but the general public. Here, authorities come to a negotiating table mainly under political pressure or in deference to public opinion. The right to strike is organically linked with the right to collective bargaining and will continue to remain an inalienable part of various modes of response/expression by the working people, wherever the employer-employee relationship exists, whether recognized or not.

Strikes that affect the public interest at large should not be allowed to strike. Employees of essential services should have different set of provisions for safeguarding their rights and having their demands put on table with sufficient attention to them by a grievance handling cell. If workers in essential services were to be allowed to strike the lives, health, safety of persons and security of the country would be irreparably at stake. As these services are essential to public in general and this will affect the well-being of the country, strikes should not be allowed.

There is no fundamental right to go on strike: Law on this subject is well settled and it has been repeatedly held by the Court that the

employees have no fundamental right to resort to strike. There is no

legal / statutory right to go on strike.

There is no statutory provision empowering the employees to go on

strike. Further, there is prohibition to go on strike under the Tamil

Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Conduct Rules"). Rule 22 provides that "no Government servant shall engage himself in strike or in incitements thereto or in similar activities."

Rule 22-A provides that "no Government servant shall

conduct any procession or hold or address any meeting in any part of any open ground adjoining any Government Office or inside any Office premises

during office hours on any working day outside office hours or on holidays, save with the prior permission of the head of the Department or head of office, as the case may be.

The Court also ruled that such reinstatement was to be on condition that the workers tendered an unconditional apology and agreed to abide by the no

strike rules of the State. The action of the Indian Courts appears to be in
conformity with the relevant Conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) that confer a right to form and join unions and engage in collective bargaining, but do not confer a right to strike.

The Indian Supreme Court that the Constitution of India adopts the doctrine of
Separation of Powers as known to Western Constitutionalism. It is well known that the VII Schedule of the Constitution deals legislative powers as distributed between the Union and State Governments. It is clear that Entry 22 in Concurrent List deals with labour relations. Pronouncing an opinion on the right of employees to strike is an act of legislation and the act of the Supreme Court in pronouncing its view is a judicial legislation, which should be frowned by the competent legislative forums. It is

unnecessary to add to the informed readers that the finding of Supreme Court in the
present case that the workers do not have any moral or equitable right to strike is just trivial and do not deserve any discussions.

Government employees cannot claim that they can take the society atransom by going on strike. Even if there is injustice to some extent, as presumed by such employees, in a democratic welfare State, they have to resort to the machinery

provided under different statutory provisions for redressal of their grievances.

Strike as a weapon is mostly misused which results in chaos and total maladministration.

There exists other alternative mechanism for their grievances. Such as

Meaningful dialogue-collective bargaining Written complaints

The issue of recognition of the union by company management, thus severely curtailing the powers and action of the union as a bargaining agent on behalf of workers.. Without a law on compulsory recognition of trade unions, there is no legal obligation on employers to recognize a union or engage in collective bargaining. Management can refuse to recognise a particular union and refuse to engage in collective bargaining with a union. Or they can choose one union over another for their own benefit. Management is free to recognise both minority and majority trade unions as bargaining agents and is free to make collective agreements with their pocket union (management controlled union) which are then imposed on the workers. Only in a few states, such as Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, are there provisions in the statutes for

the recognition of unions which have shown they represent a specific percentage of the workforce

By: Prem Joseph - 12020841152 Shraddha Verma - 12020841166 Shubhika Lal - 12020841169

Maruti Udyog set up in 1970s by Sanjay Gandhi. Location Gurgaon, Haryana

Year Happening

Feb,1982 Oct,1982 Dec,1983 Dec,1985 1994-1995

Bankruptcy Joint venture with Suzuki corporation Production and sale started Captured more than half of market share Second and third plant

Serious issue with government in appointment of the Managing director. Called for International arbitration. Amicable settlement. Planned to increase sales and brought new models. But suffered a decline in market share . 2000-2001- market share slipped to 60% from 82.8%.

Market share dipped. Existing models stripped down with lower price. Less customer bookings and advances. Maruti borrowed funds for meeting working capital requirements. Invested 14000 million in P&M and promotional activities.

To motivate the workmen for higher productivity, management introduced an incentive scheme. The incentive scheme was focused on higher productivity. the union adopted a totally non-cooperative attitude and instead of appreciating of the ground realities have demanded an incentive scheme which is highly unreasonable having excessive financial implications which the company cant afford.

Concerned revision of production incentive

Finalization of annual production target

Improvement in annual pension plans.

Wearing black badges and not wearing uniforms. Tools down Go-Slow Slogan shouting Gherao Issued a notice that if not negotiated they would go for a hunger strike,fast untill death and tool down strike.

11th Oct: Notified new incentive scheme. 12th Oct: Good conduct undertaking Plant production further down by 15%. Workers called it an illegal lock-out. Management called it an illegal strike. Workers did not agree with the incentive stating it to be too little and too many conditions.

Oct 2000: Maruti witnessed death of 3 persons one who was employed with the company. Unions questioned the safety measures followed by the company.

1000 workers in Union signed the good conduct undertaking. Called back apprentices who went for a training for 6 months. Non unionized workers who were willing also started working.

To make government of India a minority stake holder, a junior partner. Wrested control of top management.

Win-win solution Ceased to insist on signing good conduct form. Workers agreed on incentive scheme based on composite criteria of productivity.