“India is perhaps a unique country where one witnesses a
bandh or strike almost every other day. “
—A foreign Press reporter.
Our Constitution guarantees the basic rights to every citizen
of the country in the chapter on Fundamental Rights. It is also a virtual fact
that the fundamental rights of people as a whole cannot be subservient to the
fundamental rights of a group or section of the people. There cannot be any
right to strike which interferes in the lives of common people and also causing
huge loss to the national economy.
In a democracy, government employees are part and parcel of
the government machinery and so owe duty and responsibility towards the
society. Too many strikes and bands are very disastrous for the smooth
functioning of government and cause a lot of hardships to the common man. In
our country, everyone is found talking of his rights in a democracy, but he
forgets the fundamental duties enshrined in the same Constitution.
From worker’s point of view, strikes are ultimate weapons
that are only resorted to by them when all other means of struggle and
negotiation to meet their genuine demands have exhausted. It is experienced
that the working class as a whole has been relatively responsible and only used
strikes in extreme cases when negotiations have failed completely or when
employers have appeared to be completely insensitive to genuine demands of
labor.
Denial of this right would lead to a massive deterioration of
the bargaining power of workers which has already been weakened by various
macroeconomic processes such a global integration and the withdrawal of the
state from important areas of regulation and provision. In any society, the
socio-economic rights of the citizens including workers have never been freely
gifted by the State or the employers; their recognition and implementation have
always been the result of prolonged struggle on the part of workers and other
groups.
Changing the conditions of such a struggle amounts to
changing the possibility of ensuring these basic rights which are even
recognized in the Constitution of India. Therefore, the right to strike for
workers remains an important instrument for ensuring the basic economic rights
of all citizens. Nobody says that government employees should not have the
right to form their associations to protect their rights. The trouble arises
when this right is misused and they resort to Strikes, Hartals, and Bandhs,
thereby bringing the everyday life of a common man to a halt. In fact over the
years under the patronage of politicians and political parties, the trade
unions or organizations have begun to feel so powerful and perversive that they
do not mind neglecting their work, but at the same time will like to demand
more perks and facilities. The frequency with which various trade unions resort
to strikes has resulted in a heavy toll on the socio-economic fabric of the
country. All the political parties, taking excuse for their vote-banks, never
resort to taking any tough action against such striking employees.
Fortunately, the Judiciary has intervened at the right time
to underscore this reality. On Aug. 6, 2003, the verdict came from the Supreme
Court, that government employees had no fundamental, legal, moral or equitable
right to strike on work. The Divisional Bench of the Supreme Court made the
observation while disposing of a writ appeal and petitions challenging the
Madras High Court’s dismissal of the petitions against the summary dismissal of
Government employees in Tamil. Nadu under the Tamil Nadu Essential Services
Maintenance Act (TESMA) 2002, as amended by an ordinance on July 4, 2003. Lacs
of Government employees and teachers in the State launched an indefinite strike
on July 2, 2003. About two lacs of them were dismissed from service on July 4,
2003, under the provisions of TESMA.
The Supreme Court observed that “strikes hold the State to
ransom” and “cause heavy loss of working days”. The Supreme Court also observed
that strike is the most misused weapon in the country. The Supreme Court made
it quite clear that the employees have no fundamental right to resort to
strike. Quoting the judgment in a case relating to an All India strike by bank
employees, the Bench said that the Supreme Court had specially held that even
very liberal interpretation of sub-clause (c) of clause (i) of Article 19,
cannot lead to the conclusion that trade unions have a guaranteed right to
effective collective bargaining or to strike either as part of collective
bargaining or otherwise.
Thus the Court had not rejected the employee’s right to form
an association, indeed made it clear that government employees can have their
legitimate grievances addressed through different statutory provisions. In
making the arguments the Court further observed that the government employees
can legitimately enjoy their rights as long as this enjoyment does not endanger
the well-being of the largest democracy.
What we have is a cluster of rights, socio-economic,
political, and civic. All merit legal protection. The right to strike is a
political right, as “a facet of industrial democracy”. It can be exercised
legitimately not only in protest against employer policies but also as a
challenge to government policy. As civil liberty, it involves three
rights—freedom of association, freedom from forced labor, and freedom of
speech. No right is absolute. Every right is subject to reasonable restrictions
in the interests of other segments of society or of society as a whole. That is
no reason for denying the right, but a challenge to define the limits sensibly.
Even in the haven of private enterprise, the United States,
its Supreme Court’s ruling in National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People v/s Claiborne Hardware Co. (458 U.S. 886; 1982) should produce
people here to reflect on the right. The NAACP had organized a boycott to put
pressure upon local civic and business leaders to take steps to promote racial
equality. The court upheld their action as a form of political expression and,
therefore, entitled to protection as speech. “A strike seems to be no more
coercive than a successfully organized economic boycott”.
The work discusses thoroughly the reasons for legal
protection as well as restriction of strikes, the standard-setting in the ILO,
and the import of international instruments. It is not widely known in India
that the ILO’s Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) held that the right to
strike is an essential aspect of freedom of association, guaranteed not only in
Conventions 87 and 98 but also in the ILO Constitution.
Whenever industrial disputes arose, the Indian government,
under the guise of maintaining law and order, resorted to the arrest and
detention of trade union members and organizers. The CFA pointed out that the
complainant had made no reference to specific cases in which the right to
strike had been prohibited and, therefore, there was insufficient information
to warrant further examination of the case. The Committee merely observed that
in most countries strikes are recognized as a legitimate weapon of trade unions
in furtherance of their interests’. Also, the Committee added, “Strikes are
regarded as legitimate in these countries only so long as they are exercised
peacefully and with due regard to temporary restrictions placed thereon (for example,
cessation of strikes during conciliation and arbitration procedures, refraining
from strikes in breach of collective agreements).”
Over time, however, the Committee became more committed to
the protection of a right to strike. India is a member of the ILO. The Supreme
Court’s ruling, unless reviewed and reversed, maybe an international
embarrassment.
If we see in the Indian context, when the economy is on the
verge of taking flight, the trade unions and the labor class must realize that
the future of the country depends on “an all-out effort to improve the quality
of working and raise the living standard of each and every citizen of this
country”. Only then the nation can make rapid progress. The government should
also create impartial machinery to redress ‘.he genuine grievances of its
employees. The service rules should be unambiguous and transparent. Nepotism
and corruption should not have any place in the recruitment, transfer, and
promotional matters of employees.
It is the duty of both employees and the employer to avoid
conflicts and try to sort out the matter with an open mind, keeping in view the
good and welfare of the society and the nation as a whole.