INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
A strike is considered most powerful weapons in the hands of workers to express their<\/p>\n
dissatisfaction with employers and to demand fair treatment. It is form of collective protest,<\/p>\n
where workers refuse to continue their usual duties in order to solve their grievances related to<\/p>\n
wages, working hours, service conditions, or other employment-related issues.<\/p>\n
Strike can cause a halt in production, result in huge financial losses to industries, affect the<\/p>\n
supply of essential commodities, and disrupt public services such as transport, electricity, or<\/p>\n
healthcare. Prolonged strikes may impact the overall economy and the welfare of society at<\/p>\n
large. Hence, a balance needs to be maintained between the legitimate rights of workers to<\/p>\n
protest and the broader interest of maintaining industrial peace and economic stability.<\/p>\n
Under Indian law this balance is maintained through the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which<\/p>\n
is important statutes for solving problems between workers and employers. The Act clearly<\/p>\n
explains definition if strike and sets rules about when and how workers can go on strike. It lays<\/p>\n
down certain conditions and restrictions related strikes to protect the public interest.<\/p>\n
Concept of Strike:<\/p>\n
Basically strikes means worker of an industry refusing to work by way of protest. The<\/p>\n
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines a strike under Section 2(q) according to which strike<\/p>\n
means a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination<\/p>\n
or a concerned refusal, or a refusal under a common understanding, of any number of persons<\/p>\n
who are or have been so employed to continue to work or to accept employment.<\/p>\n
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lays down conditions under which a strike may be lawfully<\/p>\n
undertaken which are following:<\/p>\n
Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 imposes restrictions on the right of workmen<\/p>\n
employed in public utility services, such as transport, electricity, water supply, to go on strike.<\/p>\n
According to Section 22(1),workman employed in a public utility service shall not go on strike<\/p>\n
in breach of contract unless some requirements are fulfilled:<\/p>\n
1. Notice: According to Section 22(1)(a) A workman must give a notice of strike to the<\/p>\n
employer at least six weeks in advance. To ensures that the employer has sufficient<\/p>\n
time to address the issue before the strike.<\/p>\n
2. Waiting period: According to Section 22(1)(b) The strike cannot take place within<\/p>\n
fourteen days of giving such notice.<\/p>\n
3. Date of strike: According to Section 22(1)(c): A strike cannot begin before the date<\/p>\n
mentioned in the notice of strike. This condition prevents sudden or flash strikes and<\/p>\n
allows both the employer and the government to prepare for potential industrial action.<\/p>\n
4. Prohibition of Strike During and After Conciliation Proceedings: According to<\/p>\n
Section 22(1)(c)(d) strike is prohibited during the pendency of conciliation proceedings<\/p>\n
before a conciliation officer and for seven days after the conclusion of such<\/p>\n
proceedings.<\/p>\n
Section 23: General Prohibition of Strikes:<\/p>\n
Section 23 extends a general prohibition to all industrial establishments. According to<\/p>\n
Section 23, workman shall not go on strike in breach of contract during the following<\/p>\n
circumstances:<\/p>\n
1. During Conciliation Proceedings before a Board and seven days after the conclusion of<\/p>\n
such proceeding.<\/p>\n
2. During the pendency of proceeding before a Labour Court, Tribunal, or National<\/p>\n
Tribunal, and after two months such proceedings are concluded.<\/p>\n
3. During Arbitration Proceedings: Where the dispute has been referred to arbitration<\/p>\n
and the government has issued a notification, strikes are prohibited for the duration<\/p>\n
of the arbitration proceedings and for two months after their conclusion.<\/p>\n
4. During the Operation of a Settlement or Award): Strike is not permissible while a<\/p>\n
settlement or award is in force, in respect of matters covered by such settlement or<\/p>\n
award.<\/p>\n
Illegal Strikes<\/p>\n
Section 24 of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 tells us about illegal strikes:<\/p>\n
1. Contravention of Sections 22 or 23: A strike becomes illegal if it is commenced or<\/p>\n
declared in violation of the prohibitions contained in Sections 22 or 23.<\/p>\n
Right to strike as fundamental right:<\/p>\n
The right to strike in India is not a Fundamental Right under the Constitution, but it is a<\/p>\n
statutory right. The Supreme Court has held that while freedom of speech and association under<\/p>\n
Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) allow workers to form unions to address their issues, these<\/p>\n
provisions do not extend to right to strike. Strikes are governed by the Industrial Disputes Act,<\/p>\n
1947. Therefore, the right to strike is subject to statutory limitations and cannot be claimed as<\/p>\n
fundamental under constitution of India .<\/p>\n
CASE STUDY:<\/p>\n
Kameshwar Prasad And Others vs The State Of Bihar And Another, 1962<\/p>\n
The Kameshwar Prasad and Others v. State of Bihar (1962) case is a landmark decision by<\/p>\n
the Supreme Court of India. In this case, the Court made it clear that the right to strike is not<\/p>\n
a fundamental right under the Constitution. However, the Court also protected the right of<\/p>\n
government employees to peaceful demonstrations, striking down government rules that tried<\/p>\n
to ban such protests.<\/p>\n
FACTS:<\/p>\n
In 1957, the Government of Bihar introduced a new rule (Section 4A) in the Bihar<\/p>\n
Government Servant\u2019s Conduct Rules, 1956, according to which government employees can<\/p>\n
not take part in strikes or demonstrations related to their service matters.<\/p>\n
After this, six government employees challenged the rule by filing a petition in the Patna High<\/p>\n
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. They argued that the rule violated their<\/p>\n
fundamental rights under Article 19, which guarantees freedom of speech, expression, and<\/p>\n
association.<\/p>\n
The Patna High Court, however, held that the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and<\/p>\n
19(1)(c) do not include the right to strike or to participate in demonstrations for<\/p>\n
government employees. The Court considered the rule a reasonable restriction on the<\/p>\n
fundamental rights of government servants.<\/p>\n
Dissatisfied with this decision, the six employees filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.<\/p>\n
ISSUE:<\/p>\n
Whether Section 4A in the Bihar Government Servant\u2019s Conduct Rules, 1956, which banned<\/p>\n
government employees from taking part in strikes or demonstrations related to their<\/p>\n
service matters is constitutionally valid?<\/p>\n
Arguments of the Parties<\/p>\n
Petitioners:<\/p>\n
The petitioners argued that Section 4A was illegal and unconstitutional. They claimed that<\/p>\n
the rule violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and<\/p>\n
expression) and Article 19(1)(c) (freedom to form associations). They emphasized that the rule<\/p>\n
imposed a complete ban on government employees from participating in strikes or holding<\/p>\n
demonstrations, which they argued was excessive. Their counsel also stated that peaceful<\/p>\n
demonstrations should be considered part of the right to freedom of speech and expression.<\/p>\n
Respondent :The government argued that Section 4A could not be partially invalidated, as<\/p>\n
separating the legal and illegal parts of the rule was not feasible. They maintained that striking<\/p>\n
down the entire provision would itself be unconstitutional. The government further explained<\/p>\n
that while government employees are entitled to fundamental rights under Part III, their duties<\/p>\n
and responsibilities as public servants can lawfully restrict these rights, especially when it<\/p>\n
comes to maintaining public service and order.<\/p>\n
Judgement by Supreme court<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court observed that although special provisions exist for government officers<\/p>\n
under Part III of the Constitution of India, there is no specific reference that provides that the<\/p>\n
provisions are not applicable to them. The Court rejected the contention, which provided that<\/p>\n
the Constitution excludes government officers from the protections guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
Demonstrations, when peaceful and non-violent, are an integral part of the rights guaranteed<\/p>\n
under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b) (right to assemble peacefully without arms). A<\/p>\n
complete prohibition on demonstrations is excessive and unconstitutional.<\/p>\n
Section 4-A of the Bihar Government Servants\u2019 Conduct Rules, 1956, was struck down as ultra vires the Constitution.<\/p>\n
Thus, the Supreme Court accepted the contention, which provided that the fundamental rights<\/p>\n
under Part III apply to government servants and therefore allowed the appeal. declaring that<\/p>\n
Section 4A which prohibits any form of demonstration, is violative of Article 19(1)(a) and<\/p>\n
Article 19(1)(b), and thus declared it unconstitutional. Furthermore, the court observed that the<\/p>\n
right to strike is not a fundamental right.<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION:<\/p>\n
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 carefully regulates this right to ensure that strikes are<\/p>\n
conducted in a legal manner without harming public interest or industrial peace. Sections 22,<\/p>\n
23, and 24 of the Act provide clear guidelines on when strikes are lawful and when they are<\/p>\n
considered illegal, striking a balance between workers\u2019 rights and the needs of society.<\/p>\n
The landmark Kameshwar Prasad case reinforces this principle. While government<\/p>\n
employees are entitled to fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression, the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court clarified that the right to strike is not a fundamental right. At the same time,<\/p>\n
the Court protected employees\u2019 right to peaceful demonstrations, highlighting that expression<\/p>\n
of opinion in a lawful manner is part of constitutional freedoms.<\/p>\n
In essence, India\u2019s legal framework promotes a balanced approach: it recognizes the<\/p>\n
importance of strikes as a form of collective bargaining, while also ensuring that such actions<\/p>\n
do not disrupt essential services or public welfare. Strikes, therefore, must be exercised<\/p>\n
responsibly, with adherence to legal procedures, so that workers\u2019 voices are heard without compromising industrial harmony or societal interests.<\/p>\n
DEV KUMAR<\/p>\n
B.A.LL.B.(HONS.), 3RD YEAR<\/p>\n
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, SONIPAT<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This article describes about the right to Strike under industrial disputes Act 1947<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":526,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9313","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-laws-in-india"],"yoast_head":"\n