RIGHT TO STRIKE BY WORKMEN IN THE LIGHT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

INTRODUCTION

Indians enjoy a wide range of fundamental democratic rights, although they are not explicitly protected under their country's constitution, including the right to effective collective bargaining and to go on strike. Strikes must be defined in order to determine whether or not they fall within Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution's protection of basic rights.?

A strike is when workers refuse to perform their jobs in the hope that their demands will be met by their employers. Strikes are the last resort for employees when there is no other reasonable choice left to ensure that their demands are satisfied. It puts the corporation under pressure to act in a manner that is consistent with the desires of the employees. Strikes are nothing more than a method for employees to ensure that their demands are met in the event that they go on strike. Strikes at frequent intervals are unaffordable given the current situation of the Indian economy. Even more output is required by the country and its economy. Strikes will exacerbate the relations between the company and the employees. Strikes have the ability to disrupt the country's order and stability. India's economic growth and development would be hampered if there are regular work interruptions because of strikes.

THE RIGHT TO STRIKE & ARTICLE 19(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION

The right to strike is not one of the Fundamental Rights that are protected by our Constitution. When the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 became law, workers' rights to go on strike were officially acknowledged for the first time. It allowed both the right of the workers to go on strike and the right of the workers to lock-outs.?

It is true that Article 19(1) does not include the basic right to strike, but it does include other fundamental rights such as the right to protest and to form trade unions. Activating Article 19's three essential rights: free speech and expression, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to move freely, is viewed as a legal right that involves striking.?

The Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 defines the right to strike as a legal right with specific limitations. The Trade Unions Act of 1926 emphasises that trade unions can do their business in a peaceful manner. Furthermore, the statute affirms the right to strike and grants trade unions protection under Sections 19. Our Constitution recognises the freedom to organise associations or unions, but not the right to strike. However, as previously mentioned, the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 distinguishes between lawful and illegal strikes.

Workers should not abuse this authority by making a nuisance of themselves, as this will lead to mismanagement. When workers in the transportation sector go on strike, the entire country comes to a halt. Students suffer when workers in educational institutions go on strike. Patients suffer when medical personnel go on strike. The right to strike is absolute, not relative.

Courts that have acknowledged the right of workers to strike have also found that the absence of such a right could lead to social chaos. However, since a strike does not grant any additional rights, it is excluded from the definition of fundamental rights. In contrast to the immaterial and incorporeal nature of fundamental rights, a strike is a physical act that can only be recognised by the senses.?

STRIKE AS A LEGAL RIGHT

After a protracted fight, the workers have unquestionably gained the right to strike as an industrial action, to the point that the relevant industrial regulation acknowledges it as their inherent right. Strikes are an important part of the wage negotiating process in an industrialized society.?

A worker's only option for defending their actual wage is to seek a higher monetary salary. Striking workers can compel a capitalist to come to a negotiation table if he or she refuses to provide such a raise. This is possible since the capitalist's revenues are dependant on the worker continuing to labour. Wherever the employer-employee relationship exists, whether recognised or not, the right to strike is inextricably intertwined with the right to collective bargaining and will continue to be an intrinsic aspect of diverse modes of response/expression by the working people.

Justice Bhagwati observed in Gujarat Steel Tubes v. Its Mazdoor Sabha (1980) that the right to strike is an essential part of collective negotiation. He went on to say that this right is a practice that is backed by social equality and acknowledged by industrial regulations.

SRTIKE AS A STATUTORY RIGHT

The Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 establishes a right to strike in the workplace. Hospitals, educational institutions, clubs, and government offices are all included in the courts' broad definition of industry. Strike is defined as "a cessation of work by a group of persons employed in any industry acting in concert or a concerted refusal, or a refusal, under; a common understanding of any number of persons who are or have been so employed to continue to work or to accept employment" in Section 2 (q) of the Act. The right to strike is recognised under sections 22, 23, and 24. A lawful strike is distinguished from an illegal strike under Section 24.?

Illegal strikes are defined by the provision as those that take place in contravention of the procedures for going on strike outlined in Sections 22 and 23. As a consequence of this, the clause implies that strikes in general are not in violation of the law, and that strikes that are conducted in accordance with the protocol are permissible. Therefore, it is evidently clear that a right to strike was intended to be included in the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. As a direct consequence of this, the legislative regulations make a distinction between strikes that are lawful and strikes that are illegal. Whether or not something is lawful is a question that must be resolved by the legal system.

The freedom of employees to go on strike is balanced by the right of employers to lock out their workers, which keeps the two groups on equal footing in terms of power. In addition to the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, the Trade Unions Act of 1926 is another piece of legislation that recognises the right to go on strike.

In accordance with sections 18 and 19 of the Act, labour unions that are on strike are shielded from liability in civil court.?

INDIAN JUDICIARY ON RIGHT TO STRIKE

There are a number of different case laws that can be reviewed in order to determine whether or not the right to strike is a fundamental right and whether or not Article 19 applies to it. In the case of All India Bank Employees' Association vs. National Industrial Tribunal (1962 SCR (3) 269), the Supreme Court of India came to the conclusion that a broad reading of Article 19(1)(c) cannot lead to the opinion that trade unions have an unrestricted right to strike and constructive negotiation.?

"Trade unions with appropriate membership strength are able to bargain more successfully with management than individual workers," Justice Ahmadi said in B.R. Singh v. Union of India. If workers were not allowed to demonstrate through agitation techniques such as 'work to rule,' 'go-slow,' 'absenteeism" sit-down strike,' and 'strike,' their negotiating power would be greatly diminished. Almost every democratic country has acknowledged this."

Justice Krishna Iyer believes that the freedom to strike is a part of the right to effective collective bargaining in Gujarat Steel Tubes v. Its Mazdoor Sabha. He went on to say that the notion of social justice and industrial jurisprudence respect the right to strike. Furthermore, in this instance, Justice Krishna Iyer stated that "a strike might be lawful or illegal, and even an illegal strike could be justifiable," proving that the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 recognised a right to strike.?

Justice Shah held that "no basic statutory or equitable moral right to strike exists with government employees" in T.K. Rangarajan Appellant vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others. Justice Shah's ruling goes against the fundamental principles that govern Indian labour law. Employees and labour organisations around the country staged large-scale protests as a result. Following this obiter dicta, human rights groups voice their concerns. This interpretation was also rejected by the Attorney and Solicitor General of India, who urged for a larger bench to examine the decision and correct the error in order to establish a good example.? When Justice Shah says in the Rangarajan case, "There is no legislative provision permitting the employees to go on strike," that does not appear to be correct. The judge went on to say that there was "no moral or fair reason for going on strike." This observation contradicts Indian law as well as international norms.?

The right to strike has been acknowledged as not only a legal right but also a statutory right by the judiciary in India. Strikes are an inevitable part of pay negotiations in an industrial economy because of the nature of the work. Workers were granted a restricted right to go on strike by the Trade Union Act of 1926. In the end, it was determined to be a legislative right in accordance with Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.

According to Article 19(10)(c) of the Constitution, individuals have the legal authority to form organisations such as groups and labour unions. On the other hand, an ancillary right to strike does exist. In the event that permission is not given, the freedom to form associations shall be rendered null and void. The Supreme Court while recognising the purposes of the Industrial Development Act (IDA), held that workers may use a strike as a strategy to compel their employers to satisfy their demands.?

CONCLUSION

It is impossible to evade the fact that every right carries with it some level of responsibility. As a last measure, the right to strike should be invoked, when used unreasonably, it has the potential to negatively impact the entire economy by causing disruptions in the manufacturing process and cutting into the financial profit that the industry generates.?

The right to strike is a legal right in India that is subject to statutory constraints under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, as mentioned earlier. However, the right to protest is a fundamental right in India and is protected under Article 19. If the terms of this Act are violated by the strike, then the strike will be deemed illegal. As a consequence of this, a right cannot be regarded as a fundamental right if it has so many restrictions attached to it. Every worker has the right to peacefully go on strike in order to express necessary and legitimate demands. Strikes can be called at any time. It is an essential instrument for pay negotiations, as well as the worker's right to seek justice and safeguard his personal liberties. This right, however, is only extended in the event that a number of predetermined conditions are satisfied. On the other hand, Indian government workers do not have the constitutional or statutory right to go on strike.

In conclusion, fundamental rights serve as the foundation on which other rights are built; nevertheless, the process of going on strike does not confer specific rights on anyone else and, as a result, it cannot be included in the realm of constitutional rights. A strike is an act that can only be perceived by using one's senses, but basic rights are not tangible and are, instead, incorporeal in their very essence.?