The judgment emphasized the status of government servants, the absence of a fundamental right to strike, and the need for a balanced and least restrictive approach in safeguarding their rights.

1. In W.P.No. 18545 of 2003, the petitioner seeks a writ of Declaration to declare that the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002 (Act No.36 of 2002) is unconstitutional and ultra vires to the fundamental rights ensured under the Constitution of India. Along with the above writ petition three W.P.M.P.Nos. 23169 to 23171 of 2003.

2. In W.P.M.P.No.23169 of 2003, the petitioner seeks to dispense with the production of the certified copy of the impugned Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002 (Act 36 of 2002).

3. In W.P.M.P.No.23170 of 2003, the petitioner seeks to stay the operation of the impugned Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002 (Act 36 of 2002).

4. In W.P.M.P.No.23171 of 2003, the petitioner seeks an order of injunction restraining the respondents and their subordinates from any manner registering the cases or arresting the Tamil Nadu Government Employees, members of the petitioner association under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002 (Act No.36 of 2002).

5. When the above matter came for admission on 4.7.2003, this Court discouraging the strike undertaken by the Government servants also expressed great concern about the arrest of the Government servants by the respondents and the matter was adjourned to 7.7.2003.

6. In the meanwhile, the respondents came up with an ordinance No.3 of 2003 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 4.7.2003, which necessitated the petitioner to move W.P.M.Ps for (i) to dispense with the production of the certified copy of the impugned Ordinance No.3 of 2003 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee on 4.7.2003 (ii) to amend the prayer in the main writ petition No. 18545 of 2003, (iii) to stay the operation of the impugned Ordinance No.3 of 2003 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 4.7.2003.

7. In view of the urgency in the matter the matter was taken up for hearing on 5.7.2003 with the permission of My Lord Chief Justice on 5.7.2003.

8. After hearing both sides, the writ petition was admitted, both W.P.M.Ps. to dispense with the production of the impugned Act and Ordinance were ordered, and an interim order was passed in W.P.M.P.No.23171 of 2003, which reads as follows:

"The petitioner Association seeks an order of injunction restraining the respondents and their subordinates from any manner registering the cases or arresting the Tamil Nadu Government Employees members of their association under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002 (Act No.36 of 2002), pending disposal of the writ petition.

2. Once a person accepts the offer of an appointment to a post or office as a Government servant, he acquires a status and his rights and obligations are no longer determined by the consent of both parties, but by statute and statutory rules. It is a trite law (vide-Roshan Lai Tandon's case, AIR 1967 SC 1889 that the legal position of a Government servant is one of a status than of a contract. It is obvious that the relationship between the Government and its servant is, therefore, not like an ordinary contract of service between a master and servant. The relationship is something entirely different, and something in the nature of status. It is much more than purely contractual relationship voluntarily entered into between the parties. In the language of jurisprudence, status is a condition of membership of a group of which powers and duties are exclusively determined by law, and not by an agreement between the parties concerned. The duties of status as a Government servant are fixed by law and in the enforcement of these duties, Society has an interest. The hallmark of the status is an attachment to a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by the public law and not by mere agreement of the parties.

3. Article 311 of the Constitution of India imposes constitutional restrictions upon the power of removal granted to the President and Governor