Introduction
A strike is considered most powerfulweapons in the hands of workers to express their dissatisfaction with employers and to demand fair treatment. It is form of collective protest, where workers refuse to continue their usual duties in order to solve their grievances related to wages, working hours, service conditions, or other employment-related issues.
Strike can cause a halt in production, result in huge financial losses to industries, affect the supply of essential commodities, and disrupt public services such as transport, electricity, or healthcare. Prolonged strikes mayimpact the overall economy and the welfare of society at large. Hence, a balance needs to be maintained between the legitimate rights of workers to protest and the broader interest of maintaining industrial peace and economic stability.
Under Indian law this balance is maintained through the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is important statutes for solving problems between workers and employers. The Act clearly explains definition if strike and sets rules about when and how workers can go on strike. It lays down certain conditions and restrictions related strikes to protect the public interest.
Concept of Strike:
Basically strikes means worker of an industry refusing to work by way of protest. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines a strike under Section 2(q) according to which strikemeans a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination or a concerned 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.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lays down conditions under which a strike may be lawfully undertaken which are following:
Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 imposes restrictions on the right of workmen employed in public utility services, such as transport, electricity, water supply,to go on strike.
According toSection 22(1),workman employed in a public utility service shall not go on strike in breach of contract unless some requirements are fulfilled:
- Notice: According to Section 22(1)(a)A workman must give a notice of strike to the employer at least six weeks in advance. To ensures that the employer has sufficient time to address the issue before the strike.
- Waiting period:According to Section 22(1)(b) The strike cannot take place within fourteen days of giving such notice.
- Date of strike: According to Section 22(1)(c):A strike cannot begin before the date mentioned in the notice of strike. This condition prevents sudden or flash strikes and allows both the employer and the government to prepare for potential industrial action.
- Prohibition of Strike During and After Conciliation Proceedings:According to Section 22(1)(c)(d) strike is prohibited during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and for seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings.
Section 23: General Prohibition of Strikes:
Section 23 extends a general prohibition to all industrial establishments. According to Section 23, workman shall not go on strike in breach of contract during the following circumstances:
- During Conciliation Proceedings before a Board and seven days after the conclusion of such proceeding.
- During the pendency of proceeding before a Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal, and after two months such proceedings are concluded.
- During Arbitration Proceedings: Where the dispute has been referred to arbitration and the government has issued a notification, strikes are prohibited for the duration of the arbitration proceedings and for two months after their conclusion.
- During the Operation of a Settlement or Award):Strike is not permissible while a settlement or award is in force, in respect of matters covered by such settlement or award.
Illegal Strikes
Section 24of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947tells us about illegal strikes:
- Contravention of Sections 22 or 23:A strike becomes illegal if it is commenced or declared in violation of the prohibitions contained in Sections 22 or 23.
Right to strike as fundamental right:
The right to strike in India is not a Fundamental Right under the Constitution, but it is a statutory right. The Supreme Court has held that while freedom of speech and association under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) allow workers to form unions to address their issues, these provisions do not extend to right to strike.Strikes are governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the right to strike is subject to statutory limitations and cannot be claimed as fundamental under constitution of India .
Case Study:
Kameshwar Prasad And Others vs The State Of Bihar And Another, 1962
The Kameshwar Prasad and Others v. State of Bihar (1962) case is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India. In this case, the Court made it clear that the right to strike is not a fundamental right under the Constitution. However, the Court also protected the right of government employees to peaceful demonstrations, striking down government rules that tried to ban such protests.
Facts:
In 1957, the Government of Bihar introduced a new rule (Section 4A) in the Bihar Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1956, according to which government employees can not take part in strikes or demonstrations related to their service matters.
After this, six government employees challenged the rule by filing a petition in the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. They argued that the rule violated their fundamental rights under Article 19, which guarantees freedom of speech, expression, and association.
The Patna High Court, however, held that the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) do not include the right to strike or to participate in demonstrations for government employees. The Court considered the rule a reasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of government servants.
Dissatisfied with this decision, the six employees filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
Issue:
Whether Section 4A in the Bihar Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1956, which banned government employees from taking part in strikes or demonstrations related to their service matters is constitutionally valid?
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners:
The petitioners argued that Section 4A was illegal and unconstitutional. They claimed that the rule violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(c) (freedom to form associations). They emphasized that the rule imposed a complete ban on government employees from participating in strikes or holding demonstrations, which they argued was excessive. Their counsel also stated that peaceful demonstrations should be considered part of the right to freedom of speech and expression.
Respondent:The government argued that Section 4A could not be partially invalidated, as separating the legal and illegal parts of the rule was not feasible. They maintained that striking down the entire provision would itself be unconstitutional. The government further explained that while government employees are entitled to fundamental rights under Part III, their duties and responsibilities as public servants can lawfully restrict these rights, especially when it comes to maintaining public service and order.
Judgement by Supreme court
The Supreme Court observed that although special provisions exist for government officers under Part III of the Constitution of India, there is no specific reference that provides that the provisions are not applicable to them. The Court rejected the contention, which provided that the Constitution excludes government officers from the protections guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
Demonstrations, when peaceful and non-violent, are an integral part of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b) (right to assemble peacefully without arms). A complete prohibition on demonstrations is excessive and unconstitutional.
Section 4-A of the Bihar Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1956, was struck down as ultra vires the Constitution.
Thus, the Supreme Court accepted the contention, which provided that the fundamental rights under Part III apply to government servants and therefore allowed the appeal. declaring that Section 4A which prohibits any form of demonstration, is violative of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b), and thus declared it unconstitutional. Furthermore, the court observed that the right to strike is not a fundamental right.
Conclusion:
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 carefully regulates this right to ensure that strikes are conducted in a legal manner without harming public interest or industrial peace. Sections 22, 23, and 24 of the Act provide clear guidelines on when strikes are lawful and when they are considered illegal, striking a balance between workers’ rights and the needs of society.
The landmark Kameshwar Prasad case reinforces this principle. While government employees are entitled to fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression, the Supreme Court clarified that the right to strike is not a fundamental right. At the same time, the Court protected employees’ right to peaceful demonstrations, highlighting that expression of opinion in a lawful manner is part of constitutional freedoms.
In essence, India’s legal framework promotes a balanced approach: it recognizes the importance of strikes as a form of collective bargaining, while also ensuring that such actions do not disrupt essential services or public welfare. Strikes, therefore, must be exercised responsibly, with adherence to legal procedures, so that workers’ voices are heard without compromising industrial harmony or societal interests.
Author Name- Dev Kumar, B.A.LL.B.(HONS.), 3RD year at DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, SONIPAT
