INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS STRIKE
The source word “Austrian,” which means to give up, walk out, or captivate, is where the word “strike” in a trade dispute originates. To achieve economic justice, it is the final and greatest prudent option available to workers.[1] The idea of going on strike has changed dramatically around the world, and most countries now permit workers to walk out.
The most general understanding of a “strike,” according to Ludwig Teller, is an argument between the employer and his workers that eventually ends in a brief layoff from work.[2]
He highlighted four elements of a “strike,” as the expression is used recently:
- a current connection between the workers and those who are they are calling for the strike;
- the formation of that relationship as an employer-employee interaction;
- the development of a disagreement between both organizations and the use of the labour force’s tool of unified refusal to keep functioning as a means of the compelling or pressuring agreement following the workmen’s demand; and
- the argument put forth by workers that, despite work slowing down, the contract of employment is determined to carry on, however in a state of aggressive dismissal.
The right to strike is not formally acknowledged in Indian law, unlike in the United States. A restricted right to strike was established by the Trade Union Act of 1926, which permitted authorized trade unions to take measures in Favor of a labour dispute that would have been prohibited by prevalent economic law. As long as it is allowed by existing laws, trade unions are recognized as having a legitimate tool in the right to strike. While the right to strike is not entirely protected by the Indian constitution, it does originate from the basic ability to form a union.
THE RIGHT TO STRIKE: A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
Even the fundamental right to form an association may be limited under Article 19(4) to preserve public order and other conditions for the forces of military and the law enforcement agencies, where order is the most crucial prerequisite.[3]
Under Article 33 of the constitution, personnel of the armed forces or the forces tasked with maintaining stability in the nation may have their privileges restricted or terminated by law to guarantee the proper execution of their obligations and the upholding of regulation between one another. The Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 established a freedom to strike in India. However, strikes are not explicitly addressed in the Indian Constitution.
RIGHT TO STRIKE AS A STATUTORY RIGHT
The 1947 Industrial Dispute Statute implicitly permits the right to strike. The term “industry” has been defined by the courts to include government organizations, clubs, schools, and hospitals. The strike is referred to as “a discontinuation of operations by a group of individuals working in any profession engaging as a whole or a planned dismissal, or a denial, over; a common conception of a group of individuals who are working or had been working to keep working or consent to employment” under subsection (q) of section 2 of the Act. Sections 22, 23, and 24 all recognize one’s ability to strike. Section 24 distinguishes between an authorized strike and an unauthorised strike.[4]
It seems that the 1947 Industrial Disputes Act takes into consideration a walkout. Thus, the difference between authorized and unauthorized strikes is made possible through a legal framework.[5] The judicial system will have to decide whether it is legitimate or not.[6] Both the Trade Union Act of 1926 and the Labour Disputes Act of 1947 recognize the freedom to strike. Labour organizations on strike are protected from civil lawsuits under sections 18 and 19 of the Act.[7]
DO WE NEED THE ESSENTIAL DEFENCE SERVICES BILL, 2021
The government’s Ministry of Defense is currently introducing the Relevant Security Services Bill, 2021 in the Legislative Assembly to guarantee the continued operation of vital defence activities “to ensure the safety of the country as well as the well-being of the general population at large” and to stop workers at state-owned ordinance manufacturing facilities from going on strike.[8]
An Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) hired 76,000 individuals people, who announced on the 26th of July that they were going on a nationwide strike against the government’s attempt to internally reorganize the OFB, correlated with the enactment of the Essentials Defense Services (Ordinance) 2021. However, the Minister gave Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) employees reassurance that their employment conditions would stay unchanged. The 1947 industrial dispute legislation now includes utilities of the state that are essential for defence, thanks to Bill’s advancement.
ARGUMENTS BY THE GOVERNMENT
The most ancient and biggest industrial complex under the Ministry of Defense Industry of the Ministry of Defence, as stated by the authorities, is Indian Weapons Manufacturers. With the primary goal of being self-sufficient in supplying military personnel with cutting-edge combat gear, the ordnance factories create a combined structure for the home production of defence technological infrastructure and devices. It was felt vitally important that government bodies have sufficient power to deal with the critical, these initiatives were developed because of the state of affairs on the nation’s northern front. Additionally, they contended that the bill ensures the preservation of legally required military service across all defence-related facilities for the good of the public, the rule of law, national security, or the pursuit of a code of conduct or civility.
CONCLUSION
According to Indian standards or distinctive laws, the right to strike does not constitute universal and fundamental freedom, irrespective of whether a business is classified as an occupation or not. Strikes have no discernible reason. The strike is a common instrument of destruction. Labour unions as well as additional organisations rely heavily on labour negotiations, but this strategy can only be successful if the opportunity to strike is recognised as a fundamental human right.[9]
The legislature has every right to expressly forbid striking, even in light of the difficulties made by OFB personnel. lawmakers have the authority to restrict even certain basic liberties appreciated by the armed forces. Article 19(1)(c) states that because of the critical situation of numerous sectors, workers’ authority, wage and benefit issues, and the social ramifications of strikes, the status is required by legislation and constitutionality to declare the freedom to strike as an inherent right.
Author(s) Name: Nehal Dashottar (Manipal University Jaipur)
Reference(s):
[1]‘Labour Legislation Guidelines’ <https://www.ilo.org/static/english/dialogue/ifpdial/llg/noframes/ch5.htm> accessed 24 December 2023.
[2]Earl A Thompson, ‘On Labor’s Right to Strike’ (1980) 18 Economic Inquiry 640.
[3]‘Right to Strike and Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution by Vishnu S :: SSRN’ <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1664452> accessed 24 December 2023.
[4] Industrial Dispute Act 1947
[5]‘Industrial Relations Law, Employment Security and Collective Bargaining in India: Myths, Realities and Hopes – Sen Gupta – 2000 – Industrial Relations Journal – Wiley Online Library’ <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2338.00153> accessed 24 December 2023.
[6] ‘Right to Strike – AspireIAS’ (Aspire IAS) <https://www.aspireias.com/daily-news-analysis-current-affairs/Right-to-Strike> accessed 3 September 2023.
[7] Trade Union Act 1929
[8]Sribala V, Hari Bharadhwaj and Layasri B, ‘Right to Strike a Fundamental Right or an Abstract’ 5 IJFMR – International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research <https://www.ijfmr.com/research-paper.php?id=9929> accessed 10 January 2024.
[9]ibid.
