Lavanya Goinka
Article 19 (1)(c) reads as follows:
To organise cooperative clubs or associations, and to strike peacefully.
Article 19(4), on the other hand, reads as follows:
Nothing in sub-clause (c) of the said clause affects the operation of any existing law insofar as it imposes, or prevents the State from enacting any law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of India’s sovereignty and integrity, public order, or morality, and the strike undertaken under said sub-clause shall be reasonable and brought to the employer’s notice.
The Indian Constitution protects the rights of its citizens admirably. Various laws are passed using this Mother Statute to defend the society’s socioeconomic, religious, political, and cultural values. All of these rights, however, come with responsibilities. The more powerful the right, the greater the underlying responsibilities. These significant advantages known as Fundamental Rights are enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution. One of these fundamental rights, as stated in Article 19(1)(c), is the freedom to form groups or unions [cooperative societies] by Indian citizens. However, in a large democratic society like India, with a significant number of economic transactions and a well-developed industrial sector, policies for the welfare of persons employed, as outlined in Article 38 of the Constitution, are essential.
When we talk about the corporate sector, which includes private and public enterprises, industries, and so on, the people who work there should be given precedence, and their legitimate requests, such as minimum wages, working hours, health and hygiene, and so on, should be met. Although Article 19(1)(c) may give people with the right to form associations and trade unions, it is insufficient. When conditions call for it, employees must go one step further and go on strike, ceasing work in order to pressure the employer to meet their demands.
The term “strike” refers to a work stoppage or a concerted refusal to work based on a common understanding among employees in any industry to have their demands met. Almost all countries today, whether communist, democratic, or capitalist, provide their workers the right to strike. However, it should only be used as a last option. Misused, it has the potential to destabilise industrial operations, resulting in a loss to the country’s economy.
In India, the right to strike is not a basic right. The right to strike was not recognised as a statutory right in India until 1947, when the Industrial Disputes Act was passed. Employees can go on strike if their employer breaches their contract, according to Section 22(1)(a) of the Act, as long as they give the employer six weeks’ notice. Employees of the government are also included. The right in question is not expressly granted in the statute. There are specific requirements that must be met before workers can go on strike. Workers have a powerful tool in the form of the right to seek redress and protect their liberties.
There was a widespread belief that the boss is always in command, and that there is a risk that he may impose harsh terms and conditions of service on the employees. As a result, an instrument for collective bargaining was required. According to the Supreme Court, the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947’s primary goals are excellent employer-employee relations and collective bargaining.
The right to form associations and trade unions is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c). The right to organise groups will be empty if there is no right to strike. So, why is such a right granted in the first place? The Indian judiciary has stressed the legality or illegality of strikes in a succession of judicial decisions, but has not imposed a prohibition on the right to strike.
The Supreme Court ruled that if a labour union’s membership is adequate, it can bargain. When workers do not have the right to strike, their bargaining power is greatly diminished.
Employees must have the freedom to organise and negotiate collectively, according to the International Labour Organization. There are no explicit provisions regarding the right to strike, however. However, an ILO expert committee has deemed this right to be fundamental and an important aspect of the right to organise. Except for the freedom to strike, India has implemented and promoted practically all of the principles enshrined in these two treaties. Workers’ interests are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted in 1948. They can form trade unions and groups if they want to. And the right to strike is a natural extension of their constitutional right to establish a union.
The 1966 International Covenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights recognises the right to strike on the condition that it be in accordance with the member states’ laws.
The English legal system has been highly receptive to the right to strike. They have declared the aforementioned right to be justiciable. Lord Denning said that striking is the final resort and that it has evolved into an intrinsic right of workers that is at the heart of collective bargaining.
Even in the United States, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 gives workers the right to strike in order to negotiate for improved salaries, working conditions, health and hygiene, and other issues. In India, however, the aforementioned right has received no such acknowledgment. It’s merely a legal right.
Right to Strike
In the event of a trade dispute, the word ‘strike’ derives from ‘strican to go,’ which meaning to quit, hit, or impress. In the hands of workers, it is the most effective and last resort for achieving economic justice. Strike has taken on many different meanings around the world, and most countries have granted employees the freedom to strike. In India, under Section 22(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957, the right to strike is a statutory entitlement. The clause states that in the event of a violation of contract in the public utility sector, workers can go on strike with six weeks’ notice to the employer. Workers’ right to strike is a powerful instrument in their arsenal. It aids workers in negotiating for a better working environment, proper wages, and other benefits.
Collective bargaining is defined by the right to strike.
Section 22(1)(a) lays out a number of requirements that must be met before a strike can be carried out. Workers have the right to strike in a peaceful manner, according to the Supreme Court. However, the requests they make should be legal. In a case, Justice Krishna Iyer and PN Bhagwati decided that a strike can be illegal or legal, and that even illegal strikes can be justified on occasion. It is a social justice notion that has been firmly established in industrial law. It is also available to employees as a legal right, and they can engage in a peaceful strike to bargain with their employers about their demands. Collective bargaining and the right to strike are inextricably linked. Legal and unlawful strikes are distinguished under the Industrial Disputes Act.
As a result, if all of the requirements listed in 22 and 23 are met, a strike can be considered legal and justified.
Despite the fact that it is valued by other countries and international rules, India has yet to grant this right fundamental status. The judiciary has failed to take into account the right to strike’s dynamic structure and evolution.
Indian Judiciary on Right to Strike
The right to strike has been recognised by the Indian judiciary as both a legal and statutory right. Strikes are a necessary component of wage negotiations in the industrial economy. The Trade Union Act of 1926 gave workers a limited right to strike. Under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, it was ultimately made a statutory right. Citizens have the right to form groups and trade unions under Article 19(10)(c) of the Constitution. However, there is an auxiliary right to strike. The freedom to form associations will be hollow and illusory if it is not granted. While acknowledging the goals of the 1947 IDA, the Supreme Court stated that a strike is a tool that workers might use to force their employer to meet their demands. It is a legal and necessary weapon that employees have access to and can use in an emergency.
In that instance, forcing the workers to wait for notice would be unreasonable. The Supreme Court ruled in Crompton Greaves Ltd. v Its Workmen that striking is a legitimate tool available to workers. The facts and circumstances of each case will determine whether or not the strike is warranted. Even an illegal strike, according to the court, can be justified in rare occasions. The court ruled in Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt. Ltd. v TM Nagarajan that workers can engage in peaceful strikes to force their employer to meet their requests. In the case of B.R. Singh v Union of India, Justice Ahmadi declared that a trade union’s membership must be adequate, which can be achieved through agitation techniques such as strike, go slow, and so on.
He also claimed that striking is an inherent right that safeguards workers’ freedom. In a recent Supreme Court judgement, it was determined that the right to strike is a legal rather than a fundamental right. It went on to say that making such a right basic in nature would jeopardise the country’s economic foundation.
International Laws on Right to Strike
Employees must have the freedom to organise and negotiate collectively, according to the International Labour Organization. There are no explicit provisions regarding the right to strike, however. However, an ILO expert committee has deemed this right to be fundamental and an important aspect of the right to organise. Except for the freedom to strike, India has implemented and promoted practically all of the principles enshrined in these two treaties. The right to strike is underlined in the ILO’s preamble as an essential component of collective bargaining.
Workers’ interests are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted in 1948. They can form trade unions and groups if they want to. And the right to strike is a natural extension of their constitutional right to establish a union. The 1966 International Covenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights recognises the right to strike on the condition that it be in accordance with the member states’ laws.
Even in the United States, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 gives workers the right to strike in order to negotiate for improved salaries, working conditions, health and hygiene, and other issues. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution has even been read by the US Supreme Court. The English legal system has been highly receptive to the right to strike. They have declared the aforementioned right to be justiciable. Lord Denning said that striking is the final resort and that it has evolved into an intrinsic right of workers that is at the heart of collective bargaining. Article 253 of the Constitution grants Parliament the authority to approve foreign conventions, treaties, and other agreements. Even though India has committed a duty to respect international labour law, it has yet to acknowledge the right to strike as a fundamental right in the country.
Strike as a Fundamental right
The right to strike does not have the stature of a fundamental right. It is still a legislative and legal right. According to Article 51(c) of the Indian Constitution, the state must follow international law and treaties, and such international laws and treaties must be ratified by the Indian parliament, according to Article 253 of the Constitution. The right to strike is a fundamental component of all international laws and agreements, including the International Labour Organization and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which were both ratified in 1948. Despite the fact that all international conventions on workers mention the importance of collective bargaining, India has paid no attention to these conventions. Even the courts have failed to take into account the dynamic development of the right to strike.
It is critical that the right to strike be recognised as a fundamental right. Because if the right to strike is not recognised as a fundamental right, the freedom to form groups and trade unions will be meaningless. Such rights will be hollow and unreal in the future. In today’s commercial interactions, the right to strike is extremely significant. It is the ultimate weapon in the workers’ arsenal for getting their demands met by the boss.
Giving fundamental states the right to strike will improve not just the country’s economic structure, but also workers’ economic well-being, proper salaries, health and hygiene, and so on. The right to strike should be an inalienable and inherent right granted to employees in the modern civilised society.
The idea that strikes can lead to economic laws as a result of industry dysfunction can be refuted by the fact that if the right to strike is not given as a fundamental right, it will disturb the economic system anyway. Trade union and organisation membership will decline, resulting in economic losses for industry and, eventually, the country.