Right to strike

 Right to strike

The Supreme Court, which is recognised for favouring democratic human rights and defending their inviolability, appears to be enamoured with the glitz of modern times. The supreme court demands respect in one of the world's largest democracies, where the judiciary is one of the primary foundations upon which the democracy's architecture is built.

The history of labour struggle is nothing more than a constant demand for a fair return on labour expressed in many ways, such as (a) pay increases, (b) wage resistance, and (c) allowances and benefits, among others. If a worker tries to obtain these benefits on his own, he will fail due to his lesser negotiating strength, whereas management with a stronger economic background would succeed.

The importance of the freedom to strike in a democratic society is emphasised in this essay. It is an attempt to logically analyse the Supreme Court decision in T.K.Rangarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu for this purpose. Taking the circumstances into account, the Tamil Nadu government's decision to terminate the employment of all employees who went on strike in support of their demands was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras through writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution. Writ petitions were filed on behalf of government employees contesting the constitutionality of the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act (TESMA), 2002, and the Tamil Nadu Ordinance 2 of 2003. The court's division bench overturned the interim judgement, ruling that the writ petitions were not maintainable since the Administrative Tribunal had not been contacted. The Supreme Court overturned the division bench decision, and Shah J. began his decision with the words "leave granted."

The reader gets the feeling from Shah J.'s opening statement that the Supreme Court has set the stage for yet another historic ruling as a champion of democratic human rights. Ironically, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that chastises the labour movement by declaring that there is no basic, statutory, equitable/moral right to strike. The Supreme Court of India has given the word "strike" the narrowest conceivable meaning. When employees go on strike, they risk their own lives as well as the lives of their dependents. The Supreme Court would have made an attempt to comprehend the deadlock that has engulfed their own way of life. The court ruled that strikes are frequently utilised as a weapon, resulting in confusion and mismanagement, but that the worker is the direct victim of the strike, since his livelihood is at danger. In addition, there have been instances when they have lost their jobs, been imprisoned, and even been killed. If a person's or a group's basic right is infringed, the rest of society owes it to them to assist the struggle for redress. Despite the fact that the word "strike" is not stated in the constitution, society is obligated to support the lawful cause as long as it is peaceful. If a little transitory annoyance caused to society as a result of a strike is a viable ground for declaring a strike illegal, then the adjudicative machinery has to wake up.

The Administrative Tribunals may act as a quick mechanism for resolving employee grievances in service matters, but when 1,70,000 employees are fired en masse, as in T.KRangarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, it is a matter involving the right to life, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution. It becomes necessary for constitutional courts exercising writ authority to become embroiled in the terrible situation. Furthermore, administrative tribunals are quasi-judicial organisations that occasionally operate on executive whims and fancies rather than judicial norms. The freedom to create groups and unions is guaranteed under Article 19 (c) of the Indian Constitution. The term "union" is also used.