INTRODUCTION
A strike is considered most powerful weapons 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 may impact 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 strike
means 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 to Section 22(1),workman employed in a public utility service shall not go on strike
in breach of contract unless some requirements are fulfilled:
1. 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.
2. Waiting period: According to Section 22(1)(b) The strike cannot take place within
fourteen days of giving such notice.
3. 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.
4. 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:
1. During Conciliation Proceedings before a Board and seven days after the conclusion of
such proceeding.
2. During the pendency of proceeding before a Labour Court, Tribunal, or National
Tribunal, and after two months such proceedings are concluded.
3. 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.
4. 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 24 of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 tells us about illegal strikes:
1. 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.
DEV KUMAR
B.A.LL.B.(HONS.), 3RD YEAR
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, SONIPAT
