Right to strike

Right to strike

Subject: Polity

Context: Recently, the Minister of Defence introduced the Essential Defence Services Bill, 2021, in the Lok Sabha to provide for the maintenance of essential defence services so as “to secure the security of nation and the life and property of the public at large” and prevent staff of the government-owned ordnance factories from going on strike

Concept:

• The Essential Defence Services Bill seeks to empower the government to declare services mentioned in it as “essential defence services” and prohibit strikes and lockouts in any industrial establishment or unit engaged in such services. The Minister, assured the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) employees that their service conditions will not be affected.
• Strike is a temporary stoppage of work by a group of employees in order to express a grievance or to enforce a demand concerning changes in work conditions. In the Indian Constitution, the right to strike is not an absolute right but it flows from the Fundamental Right to form union. It is subject to reasonable restrictions.

Fundamental rights and right to strike

• Article 33 of the Constitution, Parliament, by law, can restrict or abrogate the rights of the members of the armed forces or the forces charged with the maintenance of public order so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and maintenance of discipline among them.
• Thus, for the armed forces and the police, where discipline is the most important prerequisite, even the fundamental right to form an association can be restricted under Article 19(4) in the interest of public order and other considerations. Parliament may, by law, determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by this Part shall, in their application to, –
  (a) the members of the Armed Forces; or
  (b) the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order; or
  (c) persons employed in any bureau or other organisation established by the State for purposes of intelligence or counter intelligence; or
  (d) persons employed in, or in connection with, the telecommunication systems set up for the purposes of any Force, bureau or organisation referred to in clauses (a) to (c),
  be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them.
• Article 19(1) (c) confers on citizens the right to form associations or unions. The right guaranteed under Article 19(1) (c) is not merely to form association but also to continue with the association as such. The freedom to form association implies also the freedom to form or not to form, to join or not to join an association or union.
• The right to freedom of association is fundamental, recognition of such association is not a fundamental right. Parliament can by law regulate the working of such associations by imposing conditions and restrictions on their functions The State can impose reasonable restrictions on freedom of association or union in Interest of — a) public order, b) morality, and c) the sovereignty and integrity of India
• There is no fundamental right to strike under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Strikes cannot be justified on any equitable ground. Strike as a weapon is mostly misused which results in chaos. Parliament has the right to restrict even the fundamental rights of the armed forces, is well within its right to expressly prohibit resorting to strike.

Legislations

• The Civil Services Conduct Rules,  1955 ,“No Government servant shall participate in any demonstration or resort to any strike in connection with any matter pertaining to his conditions of service”.
• In private sector, the right to strike or the right to declare lock-out is allowed in limited forms, controlled or restricted by appropriate industrial legislations such as Trade Unions Act of 1926, Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 etc. The right to form co-operatives was introduced under Article 19(1)(c) by the 97^thConstitution (Amendment) Act, 2011
• The Madhya Pradesh (and Chhattisgarh) Civil Services Rules, 1965, prohibit demonstrations and strikes by government servants and direct the competent authorities to treat the durations as unauthorized absence. A strike under this rule includes “total or partial cessation of work”, a pen-down strike, a traffic jam, or any such activity resulting in cessation or retardation of work. Other States too have similar provisions

Court’s view

• The Supreme Court in Delhi Police v. Union of India (1986) upheld the restrictions to form association by the members of the non-gazetted police force after the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966, and the Rules as amended by Amendment Rules, 1970, came into eff
• In K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2003), the Supreme Court held that the employees have no fundamental right to resort to strike. Further, there is prohibition to go on strike under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973. Also, there is no moral or equitable justification to go on strike. The court said that government employees cannot hold the society to ransom by going on strike. In this case, about two lakh employees, who had gone on strike, were dismissed by the State government.