Introduction
The most powerful weapon given to the employees to safeguard their interests has remained the right to strike. Throughout the world, strikes have played an imperative role in the struggle to achieve corresponding hikes in salaries, humane conditions of service, social security, and dignity of labor. In the hearts of democratic countries, collective expression of dissent of the employees is perceived as the hallmark of industrial democracy as well as the freedom of association.
In the case of India, however, the position of the right to strike has remained a vexed question. Unlike other nations where the right to strike has been provided for under the constitution, the position in India remains that the same has not been provided as a constitutional or fundamental right. Instead, it has remained regulated under the statutes.
Thus, a very important issue arises in this context: whether the “right to strike in India” is a labor “right” or a labor “privilege”? We attempt to analyze this issue in this article in terms of constitutional provisions, laws, judgments of Courts/courts of laws, and developments worldwide internationally.
Concept and Meaning of the Right to Strike
A strike normally implies a coordinated stoppage of work by a number of workers in a bid to manifest a grievance or reinforce a demand which relates, amongst other things, to employment, wages, working conditions, or a myriad of labour matters in general.
The objectives of the strike commonly involve:
- Improvement in Wages & Benefits
- Better working conditions
- Recognition of trade unions
- Protest against unfair Labor practices
- Resistance to arbitrary policies or retrenchment
From a sociological viewpoint, a strike is considered not just an economic action, but also a political and social demonstration involving the workers.
Constitutional Position in India
Right to Strike
Indian Constitution does not expressly include the Right to Strike. Efforts have been made by the workers to incorporate it under Article 19(1)(c), which confers the Right to Form Associations or Unions. But the Supreme Court has consistently taken the view that the Right to Form a Union does not include the Right to Strike.
On this issue, in the judgment of All India Bank Employees’ Association versus National Industrial Tribunal (1962), it is clearly stated by the Supreme Court that “the right to go on strikes… is not even an ancillary right to freedom of speech and expression… nor is it an ancillary right to freedom to assemble Peaceably and associate… nor is it an ancillary right to freedom to hold no associations.” In T.K. Rangarajan versus Government of Tamil Nadu (2003), it is again stated by the Supreme Court that employees have no fundamental right to go for strikes, nor any legal or moral right to go for strikes.
Statutory Regulation of the Right to Strike
Though not an essential right in the strict sense of the term, the “right to strikes” is considered and governed under labor laws in the form of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This act provides conditions under which the strikes are legal or illegal.
Strike may be found legal when proper notice is served, when statutory requirements are complied with, and when the same is not resorted to when there is pendency of either conciliation or adjudication. The strike found in violation of the above-said particulars is declared an illegal strike. Penalties may be imposed on the workers.
Therefore, it is submitted that under the law, the right to strike is subject to and dependent upon statute and not an inherent labor right.
Public Utility Services and Essential Services
Workers employed in public utility services such as:
-
Transport
-
Electricity
-
Water supply
-
Postal and telecommunication services
are subject to stricter regulations. The rationale is that disruption of these services can adversely affect public life, health, and safety.
The government has the power to:
-
Declare services as essential
-
Prohibit strikes in such services
-
Refer disputes to compulsory adjudication
This reflects the State’s preference for continuity of essential services over unrestricted labor protest.
International Labor Standards and India ILO Conventions
The International Labor Organization recognizes the right to strike as an essential element of:
- Association liberty
- Collective bargaining
Although the right to strike is not explicitly stated in ILO conventions, it has been interpreted by the supervisory bodies as being deducible from the Freedom of Association Convention, No. 87.
Position of India
India has:
- Ratified Convention No. 98 (Right to Collective Bargaining)
- Convention No. 87 Not ratified
The effect of this is that India is not legally obligated to accord strike a fundamental right status under international law, though a moral and persuasive obligation does arise.
Right to Strike: Labor Right or Statutory Privilege?
- Arguments For Strike as a Labor Right
- Strikes are vital to any form of collective bargaining.
- Unions, without the power of strike, are weak and symbolic.
- Strikes promote industrial democracy.
- International law supports strike action
Arguments in Favor of Strike as a Statutory Privilege
- Public interest should be protected, as well as economic stability.
- Strikes disrupt the functioning of essential services and governance.
- Labor disputes are better resolved through institutional mechanisms.
- Unregulated strikes may lead to chaos and lawlessness.
Indian law certainly is on the side of statutory privilege, permitting strikes only under controlled conditions.
Recent Developments: Industrial Relations Code, 2020
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, that consolidates labour laws, also carries on the regulatory approach.
Key features:
- Uniform notice period for strikes across industries
- Strikings-Expanded definition
- Greater focus on the dispute-resolution mechanism
This indicates a continued reluctance to elevate the right to strike to a constitutional status.
Comparative Perspective
United Kingdom
-
Right to strike recognized but heavily regulated
-
Legal immunities available if statutory conditions are met
United States
-
Right to strike recognized under labour laws
-
Significant restrictions, especially for public employees
South Africa
-
Right to strike explicitly protected under the Constitution
Compared to these jurisdictions, India adopts a more restrictive and state-centric model.
Conclusion
The right to strike, therefore, is not a fundamental right of labor in India, but a statutory privilege controlled by the legislation and the courts. Although Indian law recognizes strikes as an important tool for labor, it does not grant absolute freedom to labor in view of public interest, administrative efficiency, and economic stability.
The strike, particularly by governmental employees, has never been accorded constitutional status by judicial pronouncements. In fact, statutory laws allow strikes only when the strictest conditions precedent are met, further consolidating the view that the right to strike subsists at the mercy of the State.
India, in a fast-changing labor market, needs to reconsider whether exaggerated restraint on strikes serves any real purpose of industrial harmony or merely suppresses genuine dissent from workers. In fact, ‘strike’ as a legitimate but regulated labor right will be better set within a more balanced framework and in concert with the goals of social justice and industrial democracy as contemplated in the Constitution.
