1

RIGHT TO STRIKE HARLATH AND BANDHS

INTRODUCTION :

Every right comes with its own duties. Most powerful rights have more duties
attached to them. Today, in each country of globe whether it is democratic, capitalist,
socialist, give right to strike to the workers. But this right must be the weapon of last resort
because if this right is misused, it will create a problem in the production and financial profit
of the industry. This would ultimately affect the economy of the country. Today, most of the
countries, especially India, are dependent upon foreign investment and under these
circumstances it is necessary that countries who seeks foreign investment must keep some
safeguard in there respective industrial laws so that there will be no misuse of right of strike.
In India, right to protest is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
But right to strike is not a fundamental right but a legal right and with this right statutory
restriction is attached in the industrial dispute Act, 1947.

POSITION IN INDIA:

 In India, unlike America, right to strike is not expressly recognized by the law.
 The trade union Act, 1926 for the first time provided limited right to strike by
legalizing certain activities of a registered trade union in furtherance of a trade dispute which
otherwise breach of common economic law.
 Now days a right to strike is recognized only to limited extent permissible
under the limits laid down by the law itself, as a legitimate weapon of Trade Unions.
 The right to strike in the Indian constitution set up is not absolute right but it
flow from the fundamental right to form union.
 As every other fundamental right is subject to reasonable restrictions, the
same is also the case to form trade unions to give a call to the workers to go on strike and the
state can impose reasonable restrictions.

ALL INDIA BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AIR 1962 SCR (3) 269

 In the above case, the Supreme Court held, "the right to strike or right to
declare lock out may be controlled or restricted by appropriate industrial legislation and the
 2

validity of such legislation would have to be tested not with reference to the criteria laid
down in clause (4) of article 19 but by totally different considerations."
 Thus, there is a guaranteed fundamental right to form association or Labour
unions but there is no fundamental right to go on strike.
 Under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 the ground and condition are laid down
for the legal strike and if those provisions and conditions are not fulfilled then the strike will
be illegal.

STRIKE – MEANING:

 Strike, is a work stoppage caused by the mass refusal of employees to perform

work.
 A strike usually takes place in response to employee grievances.
 Strikes became important during the industrial revolution, when mass labour
became important in factories and mines. In most countries, they were quickly made illegal,
as factory owners had far more political power than workers.
 Most western countries partially legalized striking in the late 19th or early
20th centuries.
 Strike means a cassation of work by a body of persons employed in any
industry acting in combination, 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 accept employment.

RIGHT TO STRIKE AND INDIAN CONSTITUTION :

 Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, the rainbow of the fundamental rights,

originally guaranteed seven freedoms, one of which, the right to property, had been by the
44th amendment , made a constitutional right and had ceased to be a fundamental right.
 The unique feature of the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19 is that they are
not absolute terms and, and clauses (2) to (6) provide for reasonable restrictions imposed on
these freedoms.
 The restrictions may be procedural or substantive, but both must satisfy the
test of reasonableness.
 Whether a restriction is reasonable or not is to be determined by the Court.
 3

 Demonstrations and processions usually involve three fundamental rights;

freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of movement.
 Many a times the question arose before the court that whether the above stated
fundamental rights includes the right to strike. Before coming in to that let’s try to understand
what strike is.
 Strike is a cessation of work by the employees for any length of time under a
common understanding to put pressure on an employer to accept their demands.
 Strike is a powerful weapon in the armoury of workmen. It is available when
there is a dispute between employer and employee.
 Skilful use of this weapon may help the workmen to force the employer to
accept their demands.
 Strike is a weapon that disempowered to fight in oppressive cases when no
constructive option is left. It is the last resort taken out of exasperation. It is a weapon that
provides an opportunity for collective bargaining.
 The state of India’s economy calls for more and more production. Thus
reckless use of strike by the workmen creates the risk of unnecessary stoppages.
 These stoppages create worse tensions and frictions and may results in the
violation of law and order. India cannot tolerate frequent stoppages of work for frivolous
reasons.
 Above all from the public point of view they retard the nation’s economic
development.
 In this research the researcher tried to analyse the emergence of the concept of
right to strike under the Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution, by analysing various decided
case laws in this matter.

RIGHT TO FREEDOMS: ARTICLE 19:

 Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, the rainbow of the fundamental rights,

originally guaranteed seven freedoms, one of which, the right to property, had been by the
44th amendment , made a constitutional right and had ceased to be a fundamental right.
 The unique feature of the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19 is that they are
not absolute terms and, and clauses (2) to (6) provide for reasonable restrictions imposed on
these freedoms.
 4

 The restrictions may be procedural or substantive, but both must satisfy the
test of reasonableness. Whether a restriction is reasonable or not is to be determined by the
Court .
 Reasonableness of the restriction means that “any limitation imposed on an
individual in the enjoyment of his right should not be arbitrary or of excessive nature, beyond
what is required in the interest of public.”
 According to Bhagwati J. the principle of reasonableness which legally as well
as philosophically, is an essential element of equality and non- arbitrariness pervades Article
14 like brooding omnipresence of the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the
test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14.
 It must be right, just, fair, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive, otherwise it
would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied .

ARTICLE 19 GUARANTEES THE FOLLOWING FREEDOMS:

(a)Freedom of speech and expression.

(b)Freedom to assemble peacefully and without arms.
(c)Freedom to form association and unions.
(d)Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India.
(e)Freedom to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.
(f)Freedom to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION :

 A suppression of speech, in its most painful consequence would be mental
sterilization.
 Freedoms of speech are comprehensive, and include freedom of expression
concerning both public and private affairs.
 In guaranteeing the freedom of speech and in subjecting it to reasonable
restrictions, our Constitution has to resolve the dilemma, since the choice is not between
order and liberty; it is between liberty and anarchy.
 Restrictions on freedom of speech may be imposed in the interests of the
“sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of State, friendly relationship with foreign
sates, public order, decency and morality in relation to contempt court, defamation or
incitement of an offence.”
 5

FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE PEACEFULLY AND WITHOUT ARMS:

 would have no meaning if freedom to assemble is not guaranteed.

 Thus, public meetings in open spaces and public streets have formed part of
our national life and people have come to regard it as part of their privileges and immunities.
 Similarly, the right to take out a procession on the highways and Public Street
is part of the right to assemble which the people have regarded as part of Indian law, even
before the commencement of Constitution.
 Reasonable restrictions may be imposed in the interests of the sovereignty and
integrity of India or public order.

FREEDOM TO FORM ASSOCIATIONS AND UNIONS :

 Social functioning of organised societies is based on multiplicity of

associations and organisations.
 No democracy can function without freedom to form associations and unions.
Political parties, trade unions, social and other organisations are part of democratic
functioning of the society and the government.
 Article 19(1) (c) guaranteed freedom to form associations and unions, though
reasonable restrictions on the freedom may be imposed in the interest of integrity and
sovereignty of India, public order and morality.

STRIKE – LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS:

 In India unlike America right to strike is not expressly recognized by the law.
 The trade union Act, 1926 for the first time provided limited right to strike by
legalizing certain activities of a registered trade union in furtherance of a trade dispute which
otherwise breach of common economic law.
 The Trade Unions Act, 1926 also recognizes the right to strike. Sections 18
and 19 of the Act confer immunity upon trade unions on strike from civil liability.
 Now days a right to strike is recognized only to limited extent permissible
under the limits laid down by the law itself, as a legitimate weapon of Trade Unions.
 6

 The scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 implies a right to strike in
industries.
 A wide interpretation of the term ‘industry’ by the courts includes hospitals,
educational institutions, and clubs and government departments.
 Section 2 (q) of the Act defines ‘strike’. Sections 22 , 23 , and 24 all recognize
the right to strike.
 Section 24 differentiates between a ‘legal strike’ and an ‘illegal strike’.

‘ILLEGAL STRIKE’
 It defines ‘illegal strikes’ as those which are in contravention to the procedure
of going to strike, as laid down under Sections 22 and 23.
 The provision thereby implies that all strikes are not illegal and strikes in
conformity with the procedure laid down, are legally recognized.
 Further, Justice Krishna Iyer had opined that “a strike could be legal or illegal
and even an illegal strike could be a justified one” in Gujarat Steel Tubes v. It’s Mazdoor
Sabha, is thus beyond doubt that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 contemplates a right to
strike.
 The statutory provisions thus make a distinction between the legality and
illegality of strike.
 It is for the judiciary to examine whether it is legal or illegal and not to declare
that there exists no right to strike.
 Article 8 (1) (d) provides that the States Parties to the Covenant shall
undertake to ensure: “the right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the
laws of the particular country.
 Article 2 (1) of the Covenant provides: “Each State Party to the present
Covenant undertakes to take steps, … with a view to achieving progressively the full
realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means,
including particularly the adoption of legislative measures”.
 India is a signatory to the Covenant and is therefore bound under Article 2 (1)
to provide for the right to strike as enshrined in Article 8 (1) (d), through legislative measures
or by other appropriate means.
 7

NOTICE OF STRIKE

Notice to strike within six weeks before striking is not necessary where there is
already lockout in existence.

In mineral Miner Union vs. Kudremukh, Iron Ore Co. Ltd., it was held that the
provisions of section 22 are mandatory and the date on which the workmen proposed to go on
strike should be specified in the notice. If meanwhile the date of strike specified in the notice
of strike expires, workmen have to give fresh notice. It may be noted that if a lock out is
already in existence and employees want to resort to strike, it is not necessary to give notice
as is otherwise required.

In Sadual textile Mills v. Their workmen, certain workmen struck work as a protest
against the lay-off and the transfer of some workmen from one shift to another without giving
four days notice as required by standing order 23. On these grounds a question arose whether
the strike was justified. The industrial tribunal answered in affirmative. Against this a writ
petition was preferred in the High Court of Rajasthen. Reversing the decision of the Tribunal
Justice Wanchoo observed:

"…We are of opinion that what is generally known as a lightning strike like this take
place without notice…. And each worker striking ….(is) guilty of misconduct under the
standing orders …and liable to be summarily dismissed…(as)… the strike cannot be justified
at all. "

GENERAL PROHIBITION OF STRIKE-

The provisions of section 23 are general in nature. It imposes general restrications on

declaring strike in breach of contract in the both public as well as non- public utility services
in the following circumstances mainly: -

a. During the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a board and till the expiry of
7 days after the conclusion of such proceedings;
b. During the pendency and 2 month’s after the conclusion of proceedings before a
Labour court, Tribunal or National Tribunal;
c. During the pendency and 2 months after the conclusion of arbitrator, when a
notification has been issued under sub- section 3 (a) of section 10 A;
 8

d. During any period in which a settlement or award is in operation in respect of any of

the matter covered by the settlement or award.

The principal object of this section seems to ensure a peaceful atmosphere to enable a
conciliation or adjudication or arbitration proceeding to go on smoothly. This section because
of its general nature of prohibition covers all strikes irrespective of the subject matter of the
dispute pending before the authorities. It is noteworthy that a conciliation proceedings before
a conciliation officer is no bar to strike under section 23.

In the Ballarpur Collieries Co. v. H. Merchant, it was held that where in a pending
reference neither the employer nor the workmen were taking any part, it was held that section
23 has no application to the strike declared during the pendency of such reference.

CONSEQUENCE OF ILLEGAL STRIKE-

DISMISSAL OF WORKMEN :-

In M/S Burn & Co. Ltd. V, Their Workmen, it was laid down that mere
participation in the strike would not justify suspension or dismissal of workmen. Where the
strike was illegal the Supreme Court held that in case of illegal strike the only question of
practical importance would be the quantum or kind of punishment. To decide the quantum of
punishment a clear distinction has to be made between violent strikers and peaceful strikers.9

In Punjab National Bank v. Their Employees, it was held that in the case of strike,
the employer might bar the entry of the strikers within the premises by adopting effective and
legitimate method in that behalf. He may call upon employees to vacate, and, on their refusal
to do so, take due steps to suspend them from employment, proceed to hold proper inquires
according to the standing order and pass proper orders against them subject to the relevant
provisions of the Act.

WAGES-

In Cropton Greaves Ltd. v. Workmen, it was held that in order to entitle the
workmen to wages for the period of strike, the strike should be legal and justified. A strike is
legal if it does not violate any provision of the statute. It cannot be said to be unjustified
unless the reasons for it are entirely perverse or unreasonable. Whether particular strike is
 9

justified or not is a question of fact, which has to be judged in the light of the fact and
circumstances of each case. The use of force, coercion, violence or acts of sabotage resorted
to by the workmen during the strike period which was legal and justified would disentitle
them to wages for strike period.

The constitutional bench in Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak decided the

matter, the Supreme Court held that a strike may be illegal if it contravenes the provision of
section 22, 23 or 24 of the Act or of any other law or the terms of employment depending
upon the facts of each case. Similarly, a strike may be justified or unjustified depending upon
several factors such as the service conditions of the workmen, the nature of demands of the
workmen, the cause led to strike, the urgency of the cause or demands of the workmen, the
reasons for not resorting to the dispute resolving machinery provided by the Act or the
contract of employment or the service rules provided for a machinery to resolve the dispute,
resort to strike or lock-out as a direct is prima facie unjustified. This is, particularly so when
the provisions of the law or the contract or the service rules in that behalf are breached. For
then, the action is also illegal.

RIGHT OF EMPLOYER TO COMPENSATION FOR LOSS CAUSED BY ILLEGAL

STRIKE-

In Rothas Industries v. Its Union, the Supreme Court held that the remedy for illegal
strike has to be sought exclusively in section 26 of the Act. The award granting compensation
to employer for loss of business though illegal strike is illegal because such compensation is
not a dispute within the meaning of section 2(k) of the Act.

RIGHT TO STRIKE – JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS :

 The right to strike in the Indian constitution set up is not absolute right but it
flow from the fundamental right to form union.
 As every other fundamental right is subject to reasonable restrictions, the same
is also the case to form trade unions to give a call to the workers to go on strike and the state
can impose reasonable restrictions.
 10

 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, wherever the employer-employee relationship exists, whether recognized
or not.
 The Apex court failed to comprehend this dynamics of the evolution of the
right to strike.
 In B.R. Singh v. Union of India, Justice Ahmadi opined “The Trade Unions
with sufficient membership strength are able to bargain more effectively with the
management than individual workman.
 The bargaining strength would be considerably reduced if it were not
permitted to demonstrate by adopting agitation methods such as ‘work to rule’, ‘go-slow’,
‘absenteeism’, ‘sit-down strike’, and ‘strike’. This has been recognized by almost all
democratic countries”.
 In Gujarat Steel Tubes v. Its Mazdoor Sabha, JUSTICE Bhagwati opined that
right to strike is integral of collective bargaining.
 He further stated that this right is a process recognized by industrial
jurisprudence and supported by social justice.
 Justice Shah’s judgment in Rangarajan case does not seem to be right when
saying: “There is no statutory provision empowering the employees to go on strike.” Going
further, the judge then declared that there was “no moral or equitable justification to go on
strike”.
 This observation does ignore the legal provisions under the Indian Law and
International conventions.
 The scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 implies a right to strike in
industries. A wide interpretation of the term ‘industry’ by the courts includes hospitals,
educational institutions, and clubs and government departments. Section 2 (q) of the Act
defines ‘strike’.
 Sections 22 , 23 , and 24 all recognize the right to strike. Section 24
differentiates between a ‘legal strike’ and an ‘illegal strike’. It defines ‘illegal strikes’ as
those which are in contravention to the procedure of going to strike, as laid down under
Sections 22 and 23.
 The provision thereby implies that all strikes are not illegal and strikes in
conformity with the procedure laid down, are legally recognized.
 11

 Further, Justice Krishna Iyer had opined that “a strike could be legal or illegal
and even an illegal strike could be a justified one” in Gujarat Steel Tubes v. It’s Mazdoor
Sabha, is thus beyond doubt that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 contemplates a right to
strike.
 The statutory provisions thus make a distinction between the legality and
illegality of strike. It is for the judiciary to examine whether it is legal or illegal and not to
declare that there exists no right to strike.
 Besides the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Trade Unions Act, 1926 also
recognizes the right to strike. Sections 18 and 19 of the Act confer immunity upon trade
unions on strike from civil liability.
 Article 8 (1) (d) provides that the States Parties to the Covenant shall
undertake to ensure: “the right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the
laws of the particular country.
 Article 2 (1) of the Covenant provides: “Each State Party to the present
Covenant undertakes to take steps, … with a view to achieving progressively the full
realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means,
including particularly the adoption of legislative measures”.
 India is a signatory to the Covenant and is therefore bound under Article 2 (1)
to provide for the right to strike as enshrined in Article 8 (1) (d), through legislative measures
or by other appropriate means.
 The blanket ban on the right to strike also transgresses the limits of the
following Conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO):

•Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize .

•The Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining .
•Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 .
•Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 .

 Article 9 of the Convention provides: “Public employees shall have, as other

workers, the civil and political rights which are essential for the normal exercise of freedom
of association, subject only to the obligations arising from their status and the nature of their
functions”.
 12

 By virtue of being a member of the ILO, India is under obligation to satisfy at

least the fundamental rights promoted by the Conventions, irrespective of it having ratified
them or not. With the Rangarajan verdict, the Apex court has refused to adhere to the
fundamental tenets of the ILO.

 Further, the right to strike being well recognized under the scheme of central
legislation i.e. the Industrial Disputes Act, and forming an inalienable part and parcel of the
same, could not be taken away by way of enacting legislation by the state assembly or by
merely issuing a notification or any other executive action which necessarily involves but
only a subordinate, delegated or residue jurisdiction and capacity, inferior to that of the
central legislature in any case, and as such is incapable of overreaching the rights created or
recognized by the central legislature.

 The provisions of the enactment passed by the state legislature – TESMA, the
service rules, specifically Rule 22 of the Conduct Rules and the Ordinance of 2003, imposing
a ban on the right to strike, all belong to such category of inferior legislation and thus as far
as they subvert or even restrict the sweep of the ‘right to strike’ available to the employees
under the central legislation Industrial Disputes Act, are all illegal, ultra virus to the
legislature and should have been struck down on this ground alone.

 In a state of conflict between ‘recognition’ of such rights by central legislation

and their ‘abrogation’ by the state legislation through TESMA or rules framed under the
residue power of the executive like the conduct rules, the provisions of the central legislation
would doubtlessly hold the ground. As such, the rights, benefits, protection accruing under
the Industrial Disputes Act including the right to strike are doubtlessly available to the
government employees, and their status of being under the employment of the government
neither has any relevance nor makes a difference for the purpose of availability of such right.

IN ALL INDIA BANK EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION V. NATIONAL

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS

The Court specifically held that even very liberal interpretation of sub-clause (C) of
clause (1) of Article 19 cannot lead to the conclusion that trade unions have a guaranteed
 13

right to an effective collective bargaining or to strike, either as part of collective bargaining or

otherwise.
Thus, there is a guaranteed fundamental right to form association or Labour unions
but there is no fundamental right to go on strike.
Under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 the ground and condition are laid down for the
legal strike and if those provisions and conditions are not fulfilled then the strike will be
illegal.

ARTICLE 19 IN INDIAN CONSTITUTION ;

19(1) All Citizen shall have the right—

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) to form associations or unions;

(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and

(g) to practise and profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

ARTICLE 19(1)(a) :

Article 19(1)(a) :- All citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression

MANEKA GANDHI VS UNION OF INDIA CASE :

 Right to receive and disseminate information

SECRETARY, MINISTARY OF I & B VS CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL:

 Right to know

UNION OF INDIA VS ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS :

 Right to remain silent

 Right to hoist the National Flag freely

 14

UNION OF INDIA V. NAVEEN JINDAL:

 Freedom of Press

19(2) REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS :

1. Sovereignty and Integrity of India

2. Security of State
3. Friendly relations with foreign states
4. Public Order
5. Morality or Decency
6. Contempt of court
7. Defamation
8. Incitement to an offence

 Kharak Singh V state of Punjab

 Romesh Thaper vs State of Madras

 Babulal vs State of Maharashtra and State of Bihar v KK Mishra

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF RESTRICTIONS

 Only by authority of Law

 Reasonable

 Purpose

 Judicial Review

TESTS OF REASONABLENESS OF A RESTRICTION :

1. Directive Principal of State Policy

2. Arbitrariness or Excessive Nature
 15

3. No abstract or general pattern or a mixed principle to judge reasonableness of the

restriction
4. Prevailing Social Values and Social Needs
5. Substantive and Procedural Reasonableness

PRESS FREEDOM & CENSORSHIP:

 There is no specific provision in the constitution. Under article 19 (1 )(a)

freedom of expression means the freedom to express not only one's own views but also the
views of others and by any means including printing.

 Indian Express v. Union of India

 Sakal Papers Ltd. v. Union of India

 Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India -Censorship of the press is not
specially prohibited by any provision of the Constitution.
 Virendra Vs State of Punjab

ARTICLE 19 (b) : To assemble peacefully and without arms

ARTICLE 19 (b) (3) :

“Nothing in sub clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing
law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the
interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on
the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause”

REASONABLE RESTRICTION ART 19(b) :

 Article 19(1)(b) recognises and guarantees the freedom of assembly.

 But it is not an absolute right. Restrictions are possible against this right too,
as provided under article 19(3) and (4).
 Article 19(1)(b) guarantees to the citizens the right to assemble peacefully and
without arms
 16

JUDGEMENTS

BABULAL PARATE VS STATE OF MAHARASTRA

Upheld the citizen’s right to take out procession or to hold demonstration or public
meetings as part of the freedom to assemble peacefully and without arms and right to move
freely anywhere in the territory of India.
In this case the court held that section 144 or CrPC was constitutional and the
magistrate had power to prevent such activities which would obstruct the public interest and
peace.

VALIDITY OF BANDHS

 Bharath kumar vs State of Kerala

 James martin vs State of Kerala

 CPI(M) vs Bharath kumar and others

 George Kurian vs State of Kerala

 Shivasena vs B C Deshmukh and others

 INC vs institute of social welfare and others

COURTS VS AUTHORITIES :

 SC clarified that only peaceful demonstration is protected and not all forms of
demonstrations.

 This fundamental right with reasonable restrictions in general interest was further
consolidated by the decision of the SC in Himmatlal vs. Police commissioner.

 In this case the permission to hold a public meeting in street was denied.
 17

 SC held that authorities should not be left with controlled discretion to regulate the
freedom of assembly, though this right was subject to the control of the appropriate
authority.
 In the absence of guidelines, banning public meetings on public streets was held to be
arbitrary.

 RAMLILA MAIDAN ON THE MIDNIGHT OF 4/5 JUNE 2011

 THE SUPREME COURT'S VERDICT DELHI POLICE ACTION AGAINST
BABA RAMDEV AND HIS SUPPORTERS
 Police and the state could have avoided the violent incident
 There was abuse of power by the Delhi Police and violation of fundamental
rights of people.
 The incident was a reflection of the might of the state which struck at the
foundation of democracy.
 It is a glaring example of trust deficit between the people governing and the
people being governed.
 A person of the stature of Ramdev was expected to urge his supporters to
leave the ground. He is bound by legal and moral obligations

SUPREME COURT ORDERS

 The prosecution of police personnel and Ramdev's supporters who behaved

violently during the incident
 Compensation of Rs 5 lakh for a deceased person, Rs 50,000 to the grievously
injured and Rs 25,000 for those with simple injuries

ARTICLE 19 (1)(c)... Right to form Associations or Unions

ARTICLE 19 (c) (4)..sub clause

RESTRICTIONS...
Empowers the state to impose reasonable restriction on the right of freedom of
association & union in the interest of
 public order
 morality
 18

 sovereignty
 integrity

ARTICLE 19(1)(d) :

All citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India

ARTICLE 19(1)(d): Move freely

 Right to "'move" denotes nothing more than a right of locomotion, and

 "'freely" would only connote that the freedom to move is without restriction.

 i. e., to move wherever one likes, whenever one likes and however one likes.

 Available only to Indian citizens

Article 19(5) :-

Reasonable restriction can be imposed in interests of the general public or for the
protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe;.

ARTICLE 19(5): RESTRICTIONS :

●Restrictions can be imposed only by or under the authority of law. Restrictions

cannot be imposed by the executive action without legal authority.
●Restrictions must be reasonable.
●Restrictions must be related to the purpose specifically mentioned in these clauses.

ARTICLE 19(5): REASONABLE RESTRICTION :

"reasonable restriction" connotes the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of

the right-
●Should not be arbitrary,
●of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public,
●intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course which reason dictates.
 19

TO AVOID STRIKES :

To avoid strikes is everyone’s responsibility.

But to assert that strikes under any circumstances are illegal, immoral, inequitable and
unjustified is contrary to our law and industrial jurisprudence. Striking work is integral to the
process of wage bargaining in an industrial economy, as classical political economy and post-
Keynesian economics demonstrated long ago in the analysis of real wage determination.
A worker has no other means of defending her/his real wage other than seeking an
increased money wage.
If a capitalist does not grant such an increase, he/she can be forced to come to a
negotiating table by striking workers.
This he/she can do because the earnings of the capitalist are contingent upon the
worker continuing to work.
The argument is drawn from and Marxian classical political economy that shows how
the employer’s income is nothing other than what is alienated from the worker in the process
of production.
When workers stop working, capitalists stop earning. The same applies to government
servants as well.
When they strike work, it is not the authorities that suffer a loss of income or
disruption of their income generating process but the general public.
Here, authorities come to a negotiating table mainly under political pressure or in
deference to public opinion.

CONCLUSION :

Strike is a weapon that empowers the disempowered to fight in oppressive cases when
no constructive option is left. It is a weapon of the last resort taken out of exasperation. It is
this weapon, which provides an opportunity for collective bargaining.

The modern form of strikes had its origin in the era of industrial revolution and
assumed its multifarious forms and dimensions during the Indian national movement varying
from bandh, hartal, and protestation to hunger strike, Satyagraha, non cooperation and civil
 20

disobedience etc., it was considered inalienable right and duty of a patriot to protest against
the mighty colonial rule.

People who took part in protests were regarded as patriots. Paradoxically, after 50
years of Independence the act of participation in a strike even for a good cause is considered
illegal.

FOOTNOTES:

1. Constitutional Law – New Challenges – Author Name ‘Dr. G.P. Tirpathi’

2. The Consitutional Law of India – Author Name ‘J.N. Pandey’
3. Labour Law – Author Name ‘S.N. Mishra’