-

6

-
Case study report on SC judgement on TN Govt. Staf Strike Ayodhya Paikaray
Supreme Court Judgement in The Case of Tamil Nadu Govt.
Staf Strike
The Indian Supreme Court ruled in August that there is no fundamental right to go
on strike. The Indian Supreme Court made this declaration as a result of a writ
petition brought by public sector employees of the Tamil adu State !o"ernment
who had been dismissed for launching a statewide strike.
The strike itself was the product of resistance by go"ernment workers to the erosion
of pensions and other rights by the AIA#$% state go"ernment. &orkers lost bene'ts
worth between ()*))) rupees and +,-*))) rupees as a result of cutbacks o"er the
past two years* pro"oking a series of strikes and protests.
The strike was started on ,nd .uly/ ,))0 by 1nions a2liated to IT1C* CIT1* AIT1C*
3$S* 4P5. An estimated () percent of the public sector workforce* or more than a
million workers* stopped work on .uly ,. Clearly shaken by the turnout* Chief
$inister .ayalalithaa rammed through an emergency amendment to the 6S$A on
.uly 7 pro"iding her with retrospecti"e powers to dismiss strikers and to impose
substantial 'nes and 8ail terms on anyone found guilty of striking or instigating a
strike.
9"er the ne:t few days* almost ,))*))) workers were summarily sacked in the
largest mass dismissal in Indian history. &orkers not only lost their 8obs but* in many
cases their housing as well. To 'll the positions* .ayalalithaa began to hire thousands
of strikebreakers on short-term contracts-many with close a2liations to the ruling
AIA#$%. At the same time* police continued to make arrests.
9n .uly ++* the Tamil adu 3igh Court dismissed legal petitions to o"erturn the
sackings on the grounds that the workers had not sought reinstatement through the
State Administrati"e Tribunal - a body consisting of one 8udge already inundated
with cases. The 3igh Court agreed to only one point of the petitions; the release
of those who had been arrested.
&ith the strike ended and no broad campaign against the sackings* the Indian
Supreme Court sei<ed on the opportunity to establish a far-reaching precedent. 9n
.uly ,7* a panel of two 8udges declared that employees did not ha"e any
-

6

-
Case study report on SC judgement on TN Govt. Staf Strike Ayodhya Paikaray
fundamental right to strike and that such illegal strikes had to be dealt with 'rmly
by the authorities. It suggested, !ut did not order* that the state go"ernment
reinstate the sacked workers* pro"ided that they o=ered an unconditional apology.
5ollowing the reinstatement of some +6-*))) workers* the Supreme Court brought
down its 'nal 8udgment on August 6 which dismissed the challenge to the 6S$A law
and declared that employees had >no fundamental, legal, moral or e"uita!le
right? to strike.
In a ,+-page ruling thoroughly permeated with hostility to the working class* the
8udges declared; >o political party or organisation can claim a right to paralyse the
economic and industrial acti"ities of a state or nation or incon"enience citi<ens.?
After stating that strike action was >mostly misused*? they suggested that* for
redressing grie"ances* employees should do >more #ork honestl$, diligentl$
and e%&ientl$? to impress their employer.
The Tamil adu go"ernment immediately took the Supreme Court ruling as a green
light to intensify its o=ensi"e.
9n August +,* Chief $inister .ayalalithaa began steps to deregister ,6 ma8or trade
unions and another ,)) a2liated unions. @ecognition of the .ACT9 and C9TA
federations was withdrawn. $ore than 6*))) dismissed workers accused of
>"iolence? and >instigating? others to strike ha"e not been reinstated and are to be
dragged before a panel of three retired 8udges from the $adras 3igh Court.
'ights and freedoms
The Courts ha"e also relied on the principle that each person/s fundamental rights
cannot be e:ercised in a manner that unduly interferes with the rights and freedoms
of other citi<ens.
In +((A the %erala 3igh Court obser"ed as follows;
>There cannot be any doubt that the fundamental rights of the people as a whole
cannot be subser"ient to the claim of fundamental right of an indi"idual or only a
section for the people.?
-

6

-
Case study report on SC judgement on TN Govt. Staf Strike Ayodhya Paikaray
The %erala 3igh Court went on to say; >o political party or organi<ation can claim
that it is entitled to paraly<e the industry and commerce in the entire State or
nation.?
In Tamil adu* the !o"ernment Ser"ants/ @ules of +(B0 e:pressly prohibited
go"ernment ser"ants in the State from engaging in strikes or inciting others to do
so.
In considering these @ules* the Court obser"ed that;
(oral justi)&ation
>There is no moral or eCuitable 8usti'cation to go on strike. !o"ernment ser"ants
cannot claim that they can take the society at ransom by going on strike. 6"en if
there is in8ustice to some e:tent* as presumed by such employees* in a democratic
welfare State they ha"e to resort to the machinery pro"ided under di=erent
statutory pro"isions for redress of their grie"ances.?
The Court referred to doctors* teachers and public transport employees as
categories of State sector workers who* by striking* could bring society to a
standstill. It also noted the high proportion of the State/s ta: re"enue that was spent
paying the salaries of public employees.
*uties and responsi!ilities
The Court stressed the need for people to be conscious not only of their rights* but
also of their duties and responsibilities. It stated that in a democracy* !o"ernment
employees* they are part and parcel of the go"erning body and owe a duty to
society.
3owe"er the Court also tempered 8ustice with mercy. It noted that sometimes e"en
if employees do not agree with their leaders* they are forced to go on strike for
reasons beyond their control. Therefore* e"en while enforcing the laws* the capacity
of the employees to resist should also be taken into account.
5or this reason* the Court suggested that the State go"ernment* which had sacked
the striking workers* should reinstate them* e:cept for those who had been arrested
or against whom complaints had been made to the Police.
-

6

-
Case study report on SC judgement on TN Govt. Staf Strike Ayodhya Paikaray
3owe"er 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 a&tion of the Indian Courts appears to !e in
&onformit$ #ith the relevant Conventions of the International +a!our
,rgani-ation .I+,/ that confer a right to form and 8oin unions and engage in
collecti"e bargaining* but do not confer a right to strike.
I+, Convention
Article A of I49 Con"ention +-+ on 4abour @elations in the Public Ser"ice pro"ides as
follows;
>The settlement of disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms
and conditions of employment shall be sought* as may be appropriate to national
conditions* through negotiation between the parties or through independent and
impartial machinery* such as mediation* conciliation and arbitration* established in
such a manner as to ensure the con'dence of the parties in"ol"ed.?
+egal a&tion
Section ,B gi"es trade unions immunity from legal action in respect of any
>tortious? Di.e. delictualE act alleged to ha"e been committed by or on behalf of a
trade union. There is no immunity for unions or their members in respect of criminal
acts.
Con&lusion
There is no fundamental right to go on strike;
4aw on this sub8ect is well settled and it has been repeatedly held by the
Court that the employees ha"e no fundamental right to resort to strike.
There is no legal F statutory right to go on strike.
There is no statutory pro"ision empowering the employees to go on strike.
5urther* there is prohibition to go on strike under the Tamil adu
!o"ernment Ser"ants Conduct @ules* +(B0 Dhereinafter referred to as Gthe
-

6

-
Case study report on SC judgement on TN Govt. Staf Strike Ayodhya Paikaray
Conduct @ulesGE. @ule ,, pro"ides that Gno !o"ernment ser"ant shall
engage himself in strike or in incitements thereto or in similar acti"ities.G
@ule ,,-A pro"ides that Gno !o"ernment ser"ant shall conduct any
procession or hold or address any meeting in any part of any open ground
ad8oining any !o"ernment 92ce or inside any 92ce premises
during o2ce hours on any working day
outside o2ce hours or on holidays* sa"e with the prior
permission of the head of the #epartment or head of o2ce* as
the case may be.
There is no moral or eCuitable 8usti'cation to go on strike
!o"ernment employees cannot claim that they can take the society at
ransom by going on strike. 6"en if there is in8ustice to some e:tent* as
presumed by such employees* in a democratic welfare State* they ha"e to
resort to the machinery pro"ided under di=erent statutory pro"isions for
redressal of their grie"ances. Strike as a weapon is mostly misused which
results in chaos and total maladministration.
There e:ists other alternati"e mechanism for their grie"ances. Such as
$eaningful dialogue-collecti"e bargaining
&ritten complaints