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

Workers not only lost their jobs. . 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. This resulted into a lot of protests where the police made arrests.000 workers were sacked.    Over the next few days. The High Court agreed to only one point of the petitions: the release of those who had been arrested. in many cases their houses as well. almost 200.

When the strike ended and no broad campaign against the sackings. It “suggested.  Following the reinstatement of some 165. provided that they offered an unconditional apology. 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. that the state government reinstate the sacked workers.  On July 24. legal.” but did not order.  . the Indian Supreme Court seized on the opportunity to establish a far-reaching precedent.000 workers. moral or equitable right” to strike. 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.

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.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. employees should do “more work honestly. Recognition of the JACTO and COTA federations was withdrawn. Chief Minister Jayalalithaa began steps to deregister 26 major trade unions and other 200 affiliated unions.” After stating that strike action was “mostly misused.     In a 21-page ruling thoroughly permeated with hostility to the working class. for redressing grievances. On August 12. diligently and effectively” to impress their employer. .” they sugge sted that. More than 6.

the Government Servants’ Rules of 1973 expressly prohibited government servants in the State from engaging in strikes or inciting others to do so.    The Courts have also relied on the principle that each person’s 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. ”In Tamil Nadu.” 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. .

’  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. Strong comments about the justification for having the strike by The All India State Government Federation. 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. 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 July’03 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 July’03. . To view the page.

 Legal Action taken  No Fundamental right to strike  No legal/ statutory right o strike  No moral or equitable justification to strike .

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

safety of persons and security of the country would be irreparably at stake. If workers in essential services were to be allowed to strike the lives. strikes should not be allowed. 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. . As these services are essential to public in general and this will affect the well-being of the country.    Strikes that affect the public interest at large should not be allowed to strike. health.

Further. Rule 22 provides that "no Government servant shall engage himself in strike or in incitements thereto or in similar activities.  There is no statutory provision empowering the employees to go on strike. there is prohibition to go on strike under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Conduct Rules")." . There is no legal / statutory right to go on strike. 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.

 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. but do not confer a right to strike. 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.

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. It is well known that the VII Schedule of the Constitution deals legislative powers as distributed between the Union and State Governments.The Indian Supreme Court that the Constitution of India adopts the doctrine of Separation of Powers as known to Western Constitutionalism. 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.

Even if there is injustice to some extent. There exists other alternative mechanism for their grievances. Such as   Meaningful dialogue-collective bargaining Written complaints . in a democratic welfare State. Strike as a weapon is mostly misused which results in chaos and total maladministration.Government employees cannot claim that they can take the society atransom by going on strike. as presumed by such employees. they have to resort to the machinery provided under different statutory provisions for redressal of their grievances.

such as Maharashtra. Without a law on compulsory recognition of trade unions. are there provisions in the statutes for the recognition of unions which have shown they represent a specific percentage of the workforce . there is no legal obligation on employers to recognize a union or engage in collective bargaining. 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. Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. 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.. Only in a few states. thus severely curtailing the powers and action of the union as a bargaining agent on behalf of workers. Gujarat.The issue of recognition of the union by company management.

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

1982 Oct.1982 Dec.• • Maruti Udyog set up in 1970’s by Sanjay Gandhi. Location – Gurgaon.1985 1994-1995 Bankruptcy Joint venture with Suzuki corporation Production and sale started Captured more than half of market share Second and third plant .1983 Dec. Haryana Year Happening Feb.

Called for International arbitration.8%. Amicable settlement. Planned to increase sales and brought new models.• • • • • • Serious issue with government in appointment of the Managing director. 2000-2001. But suffered a decline in market share .market share slipped to 60% from 82. .

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

management introduced an incentive scheme.   To motivate the workmen for higher productivity. 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.

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

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

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

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

a junior partner. To make government of India a minority stake holder.  . 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.