Ingredients of Strike

Introduction	Jurisprudence
Provisions	section 2(q), 10, 10A, 22-28 of Industrial Disputes Act
Case laws	Management of Chandramalai Estate v. Its Workmen AIR 1960 SC 902 Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak (1994) 5 SCC 572 Essorpe Mills Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (2008) 7 SCC 594 T.K. Rangarajan v. Government Of Tamil Nadu & Others (2003) 6 SCC 581
Conclusion	Present problem

What is Strike?

A strike is when a group of employees deliberately stops working as a form of protest or to achieve certain demands from their employer regarding issues like wages, working conditions, benefits, or other terms of employment. It’s a powerful tool in the hands of workers to leverage their collective power.

A strike, as defined under Section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as, “a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination, or a concerted 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”.

Features of Strikes

1. Collective Action: As emphasized before, a strike is fundamentally a joint endeavor by a group of employees. It’s the unified decision and action of multiple workers that distinguishes it from individual actions.
2. Cessation of Work: The tangible outcome of a strike is the halting of normal work. This disruption of production or services is the primary means by which employees exert pressure on the employer. Without a stoppage of work, it doesn’t meet the definition of a strike.
3. Common Understanding/Concerted Refusal: The collective action and cessation of work must stem from a shared intention or agreement among the workers. This could be a formal decision by a union or an informal but widespread understanding to stop working for a common purpose.

Reasons for Strike

1. Economic Factors:

• Low Wages and Allowances: This is a primary driver. Workers may strike to demand higher wages that keep pace with the cost of living, industry standards, or the profitability of the company. Dissatisfaction with existing allowances (like Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance) can also trigger strikes.
• Demand for Bonus: Workers often seek a share in the company’s profits through bonus payments. Disputes over the amount, timing, or eligibility for bonuses are common reasons for strikes.
• Lack of Benefits: Inadequate or absence of essential benefits like health insurance, retirement plans, paid leave (sick, vacation), and other social security measures can lead to strikes.
• Wage Theft: Illegal practices by employers such as refusing to pay overtime, withholding tips, or misclassifying employees can provoke strike action.
• Lack of Promotions or Raises: Limited opportunities for career advancement and stagnant wages over extended periods can create frustration and lead to collective action.

2. Working Conditions:

• Unsafe or Unhealthy Working Conditions: Workers may strike if they believe their health and safety are jeopardized by inadequate safety measures, exposure to hazards, or poor workplace environment.
• Excessive Working Hours and Insufficient Leave: Demands for reduced working hours, adequate rest intervals, and sufficient leave (including sick leave and holidays) are frequent causes of strikes.
• Poor Workplace Environment: Issues like harassment, discrimination, lack of communication, or a hostile work environment can lead to strikes as workers demand a more respectful and fair treatment.

3. Personnel and Retrenchment Issues:

• Wrongful Discharge or Dismissal: If workers believe that colleagues have been unfairly terminated, they may go on strike to protest the management’s action and demand reinstatement.
• Retrenchment of Personnel: Layoffs or downsizing by the employer can create job insecurity and lead to strikes, often with demands for alternatives, better compensation packages, or a reversal of the decision.
• Suspension or Disciplinary Actions: Protests against what are perceived as unfair suspensions or disciplinary actions against employees can also trigger strikes.

4. Trade Union Related Issues:

• Recognition of Trade Unions: Employers’ refusal to recognize or negotiate with a legally formed trade union can lead to strikes as workers demand their right to collective bargaining.
• Anti-Union Policies: Actions taken by employers to discourage unionization or undermine the activities of existing unions can result in strikes.
• Inter-Union Rivalry: While less common, disputes between rival trade unions within an organization can sometimes lead to strikes.

5. Dissatisfaction with Management and Company Policies:

• Lack of Communication and Grievance Redressal: When workers feel their concerns are not being heard or addressed by management, they may resort to strikes to force dialogue.
• Unfair Labor Practices: A broad category encompassing various actions by employers that violate labor laws or principles of fair treatment can be a significant cause.
• Changes in Company Policy: Unilateral changes in policies related to employment terms or working conditions without proper consultation can lead to strikes.

6. Other Factors:

• Sympathy Strikes: Workers may go on strike in solidarity with employees in other establishments or industries who are facing similar issues.
• Political and Social Context: Broader social and political movements or government policies can sometimes influence strike actions.
• External Environmental Disturbances: In some cases, external factors like economic instability or government actions can indirectly lead to industrial unrest and strikes.

TYPES OF STRIKES

1. General Strike: A general strike involves a widespread cessation of work by a large number of workers across a region, industry, or even the entire country. It’s often aimed at creating significant disruption to the economy and exerting pressure on the government or employers on broad policy issues. Token strikes, which are short-duration general strikes to draw attention, also fall under this category.
2. Economic Strike: This type of strike arises from economic demands such as increases in wages, allowances (like Dearness Allowance or House Rent Allowance), bonus, provident fund, gratuity, and other financial benefits. The primary motive is to improve the economic conditions of the workers.
3. Sympathetic Strike (Solidarity Strike): In a sympathetic strike, workers go on strike in support of other striking workers who may be in a different establishment or industry. The striking employees in a sympathetic strike may not have any direct grievance against their own employer but aim to show solidarity and put broader pressure for the cause of the other workers.
4. Sit Down Strike (Stay-in Strike, Pen-Down Strike, Tool-Down Strike): In this type of strike, workers report to their workplace but refuse to work. They might occupy the premises but abstain from their duties. This prevents the employer from bringing in replacement workers and can be a direct form of confrontation within the workplace.
5. Slow-Down Strike (Go-Slow): Here, workers don’t completely stop working but deliberately reduce the pace of work and production. This tactic aims to lower output and cause economic loss to the employer, thereby pressuring them to meet demands. Legally, in India, “go-slow” is often considered a serious misconduct rather than a legitimate form of strike.
6. Hunger Strike: Some workers may resort to fasting on or near the workplace or the employer’s residence to protest and draw attention to their grievances. If the hunger strike is peaceful and doesn’t lead to a cessation of work by others, it may not legally constitute a strike. However, if it disrupts work, it can be considered a strike.
7. Wildcat Strike (Unofficial Strike): This type of strike is initiated by workers without the authorization or consent of their trade union. It often occurs spontaneously due to immediate grievances and may be considered illegal if it violates existing agreements or legal procedures.
8. Illegal Strike: In India, a strike can be deemed illegal not necessarily based on its objectives but due to the breach of statutory provisions outlined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This includes strikes commenced without proper notice in public utility services or during the pendency of conciliation or adjudication proceedings.
9. Legal Strike: A legal strike in India is one that is carried out by workers in compliance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Act lays down specific conditions that must be met for a strike to be considered lawful.

Case Laws

Management of Chandramalai Estate v. Its Workmen

Facts: On August 9, 1955, the Chandramalai Estate Workers’ Union submitted a charter of fifteen demands to the Estate’s management. While certain demands were acceded to, principal grievances remained unresolved. On August 29, 1955, the Labour Officer, Trichur, recommended bilateral negotiations between the management and workers’ representatives, culminating in a referral for conciliation to the Conciliation Officer, Trichur.
Following unsuccessful conciliation proceedings, the workers issued a strike notice on November 30, 1955, initiating a strike that commenced on December 9, 1955, and concluded on January 5, 1956. On October 17, 1957, the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, rendered an award in favor of the workers on all disputed issues. Subsequently, the Chandramalai Estate management preferred an appeal against the Industrial Tribunal’s award.
Issue: Was the price realised by the management for the rice sold to the workers after decontrol excessive; and if so, are the workers entitled to get refund of the excessive value so collected?
Are the workers entitled to get cumbly(appropriate) allowance with retrospective effect from the date it was stopped and what should be the rate of such allowance?
Judgement:

Tribunal’s Decision:
The Tribunal ruled that the management had overcharged and ordered a refund. Regarding cumbly allowance, it awarded Rs. 39 per workman. Finding both parties responsible for the strike, the Tribunal ordered the management to pay 50% of the workmen’s total emoluments for the strike period.

Supreme Court’s Decision:
The Court observed that the workmen, having been apprised of the conciliation’s failure on November 30, 1955, acted precipitously by issuing a strike notice on December 1, 1955, and initiating the strike on December 9, 1955. Had they exercised due restraint, the Conciliation Officer’s report would have facilitated a reference to the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, the Court deemed their hasty action unwarranted.
Acknowledging the strike as a legitimate, albeit sometimes unavoidable, instrument of labor, the Court cautioned against its indiscriminate and premature use. Labor cannot presume that strikes may be launched with impunity for any demand, without first exhausting reasonable avenues for amicable resolution. While exigent circumstances may justify a strike prior to a governmental reference, the Court found that the present case did not present such exigencies. The Court overturned the Tribunal’s decision to partially justify the strike, ruling it wholly unjustified.

Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak

Facts: A binding settlement between the bank and its union, granting employee benefits, was not implemented. The union repeatedly demanded implementation, threatening a strike. The bank cited the need for government approval.
Following a strike notice, conciliation efforts began, but the union also filed a writ petition for immediate implementation. The High Court ruled in favor of the union.
The bank then issued a circular threatening wage deductions for strikers. The union struck, and subsequently, sought to quash the circular. The High Court granted an injunction against the deductions.
A single judge upheld the bank’s action, but a division bench reversed this decision. Due to these conflicting rulings, the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the strike by the employee’s federation was considered legal or illegal?
Is the decision of the Division Bench should be set aside or not?
Judgement: This case reconciled conflicting Supreme Court rulings from lower benches. The Court affirmed that a strike is illegal if it contravenes the Industrial Disputes Act.
Specifically, the Court reiterated that the Act prohibits strikes by industrial establishment employees during conciliation proceedings and for seven days thereafter, as well as lockouts by employers during the same period.
In this instance, the Court found neither a statutory violation nor a justification for the strike.
The Court directed the Central Government to refer the wage deduction dispute to the appropriate authority under the Industrial Disputes Act for resolution within eight weeks.
The Supreme Court held that the proper authorities for adjudicating this matter were the Conciliatory officer and the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, so the proceedings will be continued there. The court set aside the impugned order of the High Court.

Essorpe Mills Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court

Facts: Respondents 2-23 engaged in an unauthorized strike in November 1990, leading to the suspension of 55 employees. While some employees resumed work, others persisted in the industrial action. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Panchalai Workers’ Union issued a strike notice in March 1991. The management terminated the services of Respondents 2-23 for their continued participation in the strike.
The terminated employees sought reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The Labour Court determined the strike to be illegal but, exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, substituted the punishment of termination with discharge and awarded compensation. The matter was appealed to the High Court, where a single judge allowed the respondents’ writ petition on August 5, 2000. The Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the workers with full back wages and service continuity, citing the petitioner’s failure to adhere to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This section prohibits dismissals during pending conciliation proceedings without the Conciliation Officer’s approval.
Then a Special leave petition was filed in the Supreme Court on 21st February 2004, which held that there must be an amicable settlement between the parties. The appellants agreed to the conditions, but the respondent did not agree to them.
Issue: Is the notice served by the union valid or not under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?
Whether the dismissal of the services of workmen is valid or not under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?
Judgement: The Court adjudged the workers’ strike notice to be non-compliant with the statutory requirements of the Industrial Disputes Act, specifically the six-week advance notice. This non-compliance rendered the notice invalid, precluding the existence of valid conciliation proceedings at the time of the employees’ termination.
Consequently, the Court held that Section 33, requiring the Conciliation Officer’s permission for dismissals during conciliation, was inapplicable, as a valid strike notice is a condition precedent to initiating conciliation proceedings.
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s single and division bench rulings, ordering the respondents to comply with its own terms. The Court upheld the dismissal of the workmen, citing their non-compliance with Section 22(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

T.K. Rangarajan v. Government Of Tamil Nadu & Others

Facts: The Tamil Nadu government’s punitive measures, including the termination of services and detention of over 200,000 striking government employees, were challenged by way of a writ petition before the High Court of Madras. The petition, invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought to impugn the validity of the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002, and Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 3 of 2003.
The High Court initially declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction, asserting a lack of competence to entertain direct challenges from government employees. The Division Bench further held that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the petitioners had failed to exhaust the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the Administrative Tribunal, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others.
During the proceedings, it was brought to the Court’s attention that the majority of those detained were clerical and subordinate staff. By way of an interim order, the learned Judge directed the State Government to release the detainees on bail.
Subsequently, a series of special leave petitions were filed before the Supreme Court, challenging both the High Court’s judgment and the State Government’s actions. These petitions raised constitutional questions concerning the existence of a fundamental right to strike for government employees, and challenged the alleged arbitrary exercise of executive power by the Tamil Nadu Government.
Issue: Whether the right to strike is fundamental, statutory, or equitable/moral right?
Whether the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2000 was a violation of the provisions of the Constitution?
Judgement: The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Shah and Lakshmanan, clarified that government employees do not possess a fundamental right to strike. They emphasized that this legal principle is well-established and repeatedly upheld by the Court.
The bench further asserted that there is neither a statutory nor a common law right to strike for government employees. They highlighted the express prohibition against strikes in the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, which includes abstention from work or neglect of duties without authorization.
The Court rejected any moral justification for government employee strikes, stating that they cannot hold society hostage. Strikes, particularly in essential services, lead to chaos and disproportionate harm to the public.
Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Senior Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, informed the Court that the State Government would reinstate all dismissed employees, contingent upon an unconditional apology and an undertaking to abide by Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, which prohibits strikes and related activities.
The Court noted the scale of the government’s actions, including the dismissal of employees under the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act (TESMA) and the suspension of teachers in aided colleges.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the employees’ petitions, affirming that the right to strike is not a fundamental right and upholding the Tamil Nadu government’s actions.