The Right to Strike in India: Constitutional Conflicts and the Industrial Relations Code, 2020

Abstract

The right to strike represents one of the most contentious aspects of Indian industrial jurisprudence, embodying the tension between workers’ collective bargaining rights and the state’s interest in maintaining industrial peace. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which consolidates earlier labour statutes, has introduced significant restrictions on strike activities while ostensibly balancing worker rights with industrial stability. This article critically examines the constitutional validity of strike restrictions under the Code, analyzing judicial precedents from All India Bank Employees’ Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (1962) to T.K. Rangarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2003). It highlights the contradictions between the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association under Article 19(1)(c) and statutory limitations on collective action. The Code’s provisions regarding mandatory notice periods, restrictions on strikes in public utility services, and enhanced penalties raise concerns about proportionality and compliance with International Labour Organization conventions. Comparative analysis with international labour standards and practices in the United Kingdom, United States, and France demonstrates that while certain restrictions may be justified, the Code risks undermining workers’ bargaining power. The article concludes with reform recommendations emphasizing the need for constitutional alignment, adherence to international labour standards, and institutional mechanisms that preserve both industrial peace and workers’ rights.

Introduction

The right to strike occupies a complex position in India’s constitutional and statutory framework, embodying the fundamental conflict between individual freedoms and collective welfare. On one hand, strike action is a critical tool of collective bargaining, enabling workers to resist exploitative practices. On the other, prolonged or widespread strikes threaten economic stability, public order, and essential services.

The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (hereinafter “IRC” or “the Code”), enacted as part of a larger initiative to consolidate 29 labour laws into four labour codes, represents a significant restructuring of India’s labour jurisprudence. It consolidates and repeals the Trade Unions Act, 1926, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, among others.

Its provisions relating to strikes impose stricter procedural requirements, extend prohibitions during conciliation and arbitration proceedings, and introduce harsher penalties for “illegal” strikes. These reforms are presented as necessary for ensuring industrial peace and improving the “ease of doing business.”

However, the Code raises constitutional questions. Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution guarantees the right to form associations or unions, which implicitly includes the ability to pursue legitimate union objectives. Yet the Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to strike is not a fundamental right but a statutory one, subject to regulation. This judicial approach reflects a balancing of workers’ freedoms with state imperatives but often tilts in favour of industrial harmony over labour militancy.

Legal Framework

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 19(1)(c): Guarantees citizens the right to form associations or unions, but does not explicitly include the right to strike.
• Article 19(4): Permits reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order or morality.
• Article 21: Interpreted to include the right to livelihood (Olga Tellis case).
• Article 43 (Directive Principles): Directs the state to secure living wages and humane working conditions.

Statutory Framework under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020

• Definition of strike (Section 2(q)): Includes cessation or refusal of work in combination.
• Procedural restrictions (Section 62): Requires 14 days’ prior notice; prohibits strikes during conciliation and tribunal proceedings.
• Public utility services (Section 63): Extends restrictions up to six weeks after conciliation.
• Penalties (Section 77): Imprisonment up to one year or fines up to ₹50,000 for illegal strikes.
• Expanded definition of “public utility services” places more industries under restrictions.

Judicial Pronouncements

1. All India Bank Employees’ Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (1962):
   Held that Article 19(1)(c) does not guarantee the right to strike. Strikes are statutory, not fundamental rights.
2. Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1962):
   Distinguished between peaceful demonstrations (protected) and strikes (restricted). Upheld restrictions for government employees.
3. Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union (1999):
   Held that participation in an illegal strike is misconduct but requires due process before penalties.
4. T.K. Rangarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2003):
   Ruled that government employees have no fundamental, legal, moral, or equitable right to strike.

Critical Analysis

Constitutional Validity and Proportionality

The IRC’s restrictions must satisfy the test of “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(4). The doctrine of proportionality requires restrictions to be suitable, necessary, and balanced. The broad expansion of public utility services and criminal penalties may fail this test, as they effectively nullify the ability to strike in many industries.

Balancing Rights and Industrial Harmony

Strikes are often a last resort in collective bargaining. Excessive procedural hurdles weaken unions’ leverage and push disputes toward state-controlled conciliation rather than genuine negotiations.

Ultra Vires Concerns

Provisions imposing imprisonment and sweeping prohibitions risk being ultra vires to Article 19(1)(c) as they disproportionately interfere with workers’ associational freedoms.

Conclusion

The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 continues India’s restrictive approach to strikes but goes further by lengthening notice periods, widening prohibitions, and criminalising participation. These measures risk weakening unions and falling short of international labour standards. Courts have often prioritised industrial harmony, yet excessive restrictions erode workers’ bargaining power. A fairer path would limit “essential services,” encourage democratic strike ballots, and strengthen alternative dispute resolution, ensuring labour rights are protected alongside industrial peace and constitutional values.

References

1. Ministry of Labour and Employment, Statement of Objects and Reasons: Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (India).
2. Trade Unions Act, 1926 (India) (repealed); Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (India) (repealed); Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (India) (repealed).
3. Industrial Relations Code, 2020, sections 2(q), 62–63, 77 (India).
4. All India Bank Employees’ Ass’n v. Nat’l Indus. Tribunal, AIR 1962 SC 171 (India).
5. Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166 (India).
6. Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Maharashtra Gen. Kamgar Union, (1999) 8 SCC 552 (India).
7. T.K. Rangarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2003) 6 SCC 581 (India).
8. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Mun. Corp., AIR 1986 SC 180 (India).
9. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (India).
10. INDIA CONST. arts. 19(1)(c), 19(4), 21, 43.

FAQs

Q1. Does the Constitution guarantee the right to strike?
No. Article 19(1)(c) protects forming unions but not striking.

Q2. What changes did the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, bring?
It mandates a 14-day strike notice, extends restrictions in public utilities, widens their scope, and imposes stricter penalties.

Q3. Can government employees strike legally?
No. The Supreme Court has ruled that government employees have no right to strike, and violations attract disciplinary action.

Q4. What are the penalties for illegal strikes?
Up to one year’s imprisonment or a fine of ₹50,000.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India