VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The Government employees have no fundamental right to resort to strike. There is no statutory provision empowering the employees to go on strike and strikes cannot also be justified on any equitable ground.

Headnote:(i) Labour Law-Right to strike-Whether fundamental, statutory or equitable/moral right-Held, no such right exists with Government employees-There is no fundamental right to go on strike-No legal statutory right to go on strike-There is prohibition to go on strike under Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules-Strike cannot be justified even on any equitable ground-There is no moral or equitable justification to go on strike-Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973-Rules 22 and 22A.
       Held : Law on this subject is well settled and it has been repeatedly held by this Court that the employees have no fundamental right to resort to strike. (Para 13)
       There is no statutory provision empowering the employees to go on strike. Further, there is prohibition to go on strike under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Conduct Rules"), Rule 22 provides that "no Government servant shall engage himself in strike or in incitements thereto or in similar activities." Explanation to the said provision explains the term similar activities . It states that "for the purpose of this rule the expression `similar activities shall be deemed to include the absence from work or neglect of duties without permission and with the object of compelling something to be done by his superior officers or the Government or any demonstrative fast usually called "hunger strike" for similar purposes. Rule 22-A provides that "no Government servant shall conduct any procession or hold or address any meeting in any part of any open ground adjoining any Government Office or inside any Office premises-(a) during office hours on any working day; and (b) outside office hours or on holidays, save with the prior permission of the head of the Department or head of office, as the case may be. (Paras 18 & 19)
       Apart from statutory rights, Government employees cannot claim that they can take the society at ransom by going on strike. Even if there is injustice to some extent, as presumed by such employees, in a democratic welfare State, they have to resort to the machinery provided under different statutory provisions for redressal of their grievances. Strike as a weapon is mostly misused which results in chaos and total maladministration. Strike affects the society as a whole and particularly when two lakh employees go on strike enmasse, the entire administration comes to a grinding halt. In the case of strike by a teacher, entire educational system suffers; many students are prevented from appearing in their exams which ultimately affect their whole career. In case of strike by Doctors, innocent patients suffer; in case of strike by employees of transport services, entire movement of the society comes to a stand still; business is adversely affected and number of persons find it difficult to attend to their work, to move from one place to another or one city to another. On occasions, public properties are destroyed or damaged and finally this creates bitterness among public against those who are on strike. (Para 20)
       In the prevailing situation, apart from being conscious of rights, we have to be fully aware of our duties, responsibilities and effective methods for discharging the same. For redressing their grievances, instead of going on strike, if employees do some more work honestly, diligently and efficiently, such gesture would not only be appreciated by the authority but also by people at large. The reason being, in a democracy even though they are Government employees, they are part and parcel of governing body and owe duty to the Society. We also agree that misconduct by the government employees is required to be dealt with in accordance with law. However, considering the gravity of the situation and the fact that on occasion, even if the employees are not prepared to agree with what is contended by some leaders who encourage the strikes, they are forced to go on strikes for reasons beyond their control. Therefore, even though the provisions of the Act and the Rules are to be enforced, they are to be enforced after taking into consideration the situation and the capacity of the employees to resist. On occasion, there is tendency or compulsion to blindly follow the others. (Paras 22 & 23)
       (ii) Labour Law-Strike-Termination of services of all employees who have resorted to strike-Writ Petitions -Order of reinstatement-1,70,241 employees of Tamil Nadu Government were dismissed-Teachers of Aided Colleges suspended-Total number reinstated are 1,56,106-Number of employees, and Teachers not reinstated being 14,135-Secretarial staff of 2,215 and 534 officers holding higher positions would be treated as suspended instead of dismissed-Remaining 8,063 will be reinstated in service on their tendering unconditional apology for resorting to strike-Representation of employees would be considered by three retired High Court Judges-Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. (Paras 24 & 25)
       (iii) Constitution of India-Article 226-Writ jurisdiction-Dismissal of about two lacs employees for going on strike-Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal manned by only one man-Writ petitions filed by Government employees challenging validity of Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act and also Ordinance No. 3 of 2003-Whether maintainable-(Yes)-It being an extraordinary case-No justifiable reason for the High Court not to entertain writ petitions on ground of alternative remedy provided under the statute.
       Held : It is also established principle that where there is an alternative, effective, efficacious remedy available under the law, the High Court would not exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and that has been reiterated by holding that the litigants must first approach the Tribunals which act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted and therefore, it will not be open to the litigants to directly approach the High Court even where the question of vires of the statutory legislation is challenged. (Para 6)
       However, in a case like this, if thousands of employees are directed to approach the Administrative Tribunal, the Tribunal would not be in a position to render justice to the cause. Hence, as stated earlier because of very very exceptional circumstance that arose in the present case, there was no justifiable reason for the High Court not to entertain the petitions on the ground of alternative remedy provided under the statute. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Shah, J.-Leave granted.

2. Unprecedented action of the Tamil Nadu Government terminating the services of all employees who have resorted to strike for their demands was challenged before the High Court of Madras by filing writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. Learned Single Judge by interim order inta alia directed the State Government that suspension and dismissal of employees without conducting any enquiry be kept in abeyance until further orders and such employees be directed to resume duty. That interim order was challenged by the State Government by filing writ appeals. On behalf of Government employees, writ petitions were filed challenging he validity of the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002 and also the Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 3 of 2003.

3. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the interim order and arrived at the conclusion that without exhausting the alternative remedy of approaching the Administrative Tribunal, writ petitions were not maintainable. It was pointed out to the Court that the total detentions were 2211, out of which 74 were ladies and only 165 male and 7 female personnel have so far been enlarged on bail, which reveals pathetic condition of the arrestees. The arrestees were mainly clerks and subordinate staff. The Court, therefore, directed that those who were arrested and lodged in jails be released on bail.

4. That order is challenged by filing these appeals. For the same reliefs, writ petitions under Article 32 are also filed.

5. At the outset, it is to be reiterated that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court is empowered to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to meet unprecedented extra-ordinary situation having no parallel. It is equally true that extra-ordinary powers are required to be sparingly used. The facts of the present case reveal that this was most extra-ordinary case, which called for interference by the High Court, as the State Government had dismissed about two lacs employees for going on strike.

6. It is true that in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others [(1997) 3 SCC 261], this Court has held that it will not be open to the employees to directly approach the High Court even where the question of vires of the statutory legislation is challenged. However, this ratio is required to be appreciated in context of the question which was decided by this Court wherein it was sought to be contended that once the Tribunals are established under Article 323-A or Article 323B, jurisdiction of the High Court would be excluded. Negativing the said contention, this Court made it clear that jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a part of inviolable basic structure of the Constitution and it cannot be said that such Tribunals are effective substitute of the High Courts in discharging powers of judicial review. It is also established principle that where there is an alternative, effective, efficacious remedy available under the law, the High Court would not exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and that has been reiterated by holding that the litigants must first approach the Tribunals which act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted and therefore, it will not be open to the litigants to directly approach the High Court even where the question of vires of the statutory legislation is challenged.

7. In L. Chandra Kumar s case, the Court inter alia referred to and relied upon the case in Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India [1956 SCR 267], wherein Bose, J. made the following observations:-

"The heart and core of a democracy lies in the judicial process, and that means independent and fearless Judges free from executive control brought up in judicial traditions and trained to judicial ways of working and thinking. The main bulwarks of liberty and freedom lie there and it is clear to me that uncontrolled powe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 727

VERY IMPORTANT POINTThe Government employees have no fundamental right to resort to strike. There is no statutory provision empowering the employees to go on strike and strikes cannot also be justified on any equitable ground.

Cases Referred (7)

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The Government employees have no fundamental right to resort to strike. There is no statutory provision empowering the employees to go on strike and strikes cannot also be justified on any equitable ground.