Employees'- Rights to Strike

 Employees'- Rights to Strike

"India is perhaps a unique country where one witnesses a bandh or strike almost every other day."-A foreign press reporter.'

Our Constitution guarantees certain basic rights to every citizen of the  country in the chapter on Fundamental Rights. It is also a vital fact that  fundamental rights of common 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 national economy.  

In a democracy, government employees are part and parcel of the  government machinery and so owe full duty and responsibility towards the  any strikes and bandhs are very disastrous for the smooth  society. Too  functioning of government and cause a lot of hardships to a common man. In  our country many people are found talking of their rights in the democracy,  but they forget the fundamental duties enshrined in the same Constitution.  

From worker's point of view, strikes are ultimate weapons which are only  resorted to by them when all other means of struggle and negotiation to get  their genuine demands fulfilled 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 the genuine demands of labour. 

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 as global integration and the withdrawal of the state from  important areas of regulation and control. In no society, the socio-economic  rights of the citizens including the industrial workers, have ever 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 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 the government employees should not have a right to form  their associations to protect their rights. The trouble arises when this right is  everyday life of a common man to a halt. 

 misused and they resort to strikes, hartals and bandhs, thereby bringing the  Recently, the strike by pilots of Air India caused losses amounting to  millions of rupees to the government owned aircraft carrier. It also caused  unnecessary hassles and discomfort to the passengers also leading to disrepute  for the company. Such situations could be easily avoided but for the sincere  endeavours by both the parties. These situations need not be politicized and  there must be a strong will to keep nation's interests on top priority. 

In fact, over the years under the patronage of politicians and political  parties, the trade unions or organizations have begun to feel themselves 80  powerful and perversive that they do not mind neglecting their work, though  expecting at the same time more perks and facilities. The frequency with whick  various trade unions resort to strikes has resulted into a heavy toll on the  socio-economic fabric of the country. All the political parties, considering the  interests of their vote-banks, never resort to take any tough action against  such striking employees.

  Fortunately, the Judiciary has intervened at the right time to underscore  this reality. On 6th August, 2003, the verdict came from the Supreme Court  that government employees had no fundamental, legal, moral or equitable  right to strike on work. A division 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  4th July, 2003. Lacs of government employees and teachers in the state  launched an indefinite strike on 2nd July, 2003. About two lac of them were  dismissed from service on 4th July, 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 judgement 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 Subclause (c) of clause (i) of Article 19, cannot  lead to the conclusion that trade unions have a guaranteed rights to an  effective collective bargaining or to strike either as part of collective bargaining or otherwise.

    Thus, the court had not rejected the employees 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 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 employers' policies but also as a challenge to government policy. As a  civil liberty it involves three rights-freedom of association, freedom from  forced labour and freedom of speech. No right is absolute. Every right is  subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest 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 Coloured People   us Clariborne Hardware Co (458 US 886; 1982) should persuade. People here to  reflect on the right. The NAACP had organised 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". 

 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, e.g.,  cessation of strikes during conciliation and arbitration procedures, refraining  from strikes in breach of collective agreements)."  

Over the 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, may be an international  embarrassment. 

 If we see in Indian context, when the economy is on the verge of taking  flight, the trade unions and the labour class must realise 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 an  impartial machinery to redress the genuine grievances of its employees. 

The  service rules should be unambiguous and transparent. Nepotism and  corruption should not have any place in recruitment, transfer and promotional  matters of employees.  It is the duty of both employees and the employer to avoid the conflicts and try to sort out the matters with open minds, keeping in view the good and welfare of the society and the nation as a whole.