Patient Care Paramount: High Court Upholds Strike Ban at PGIMER, Defers Ruling on Labour Rules

CHANDIGARH – In a significant judgment underscoring the judiciary's role in safeguarding essential public services, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has disposed of petitions concerning union protests at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, while unequivocally reiterating a ban on any activity that disrupts patient care. The ruling clarifies the boundaries of protest rights within critical healthcare institutions, even as the core labour dispute over service conditions remains pending before a conciliator.

A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, delivered the order on Thursday, bringing a close to a batch of petitions, including CWP No. 162 of 2024 and CWP No. 24 of 2024. The petitions had challenged the frequent protests, strikes, and resulting service disruptions by employee unions at the premier medical facility.

While disposing of the petitions related to protest obstructions, the court made its stance on future actions clear. The bench specified that employee unions “shall not enter the premises of the PGI” in a manner that causes “obstruction to the movement of the patients or the employees or officers.” This directive establishes a clear legal line, prioritizing unimpeded access to medical services over demonstrative union activities that could hinder hospital operations.

The court's order builds upon its own interim directions from November 22, 2024, which had issued a powerful writ of prohibition. That earlier order had restrained all PGIMER employees, whether regular or contractual, from engaging in strikes while conciliation proceedings were underway. Critically, the court extended its oversight beyond the conciliation period, stating that a strike would not be permitted even after the process concludes—should the outcome be adverse to the employees—without obtaining explicit permission from the court itself. This assertion of continued judicial supervision is a noteworthy aspect of the case, effectively making the court the final arbiter on any proposed industrial action at the institute for the foreseeable future.

The Core of the Dispute: Contract Labour and Parity

The legal battle stems from a complex and protracted dispute over the employment of contract labour at PGIMER, governed by the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The issue traces back to a 2014 Ministry of Labour and Employment notification, which, based on the advice of the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board (CACLB), had prohibited the engagement of contract labour for core services like sanitation, security, and catering at the institute.

However, Section 31 of the Act allows the appropriate government to grant exemptions in specific cases. PGIMER successfully sought and obtained such exemptions, which were renewed periodically in 2018, 2020, and 2023. These exemptions were not unconditional. A key stipulation required the institute to provide contract workers with wages and benefits on par with those of the lowest-paid regular employees performing similar duties. This condition aligns with the principle enshrined in Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Contract Labour (Central) Rules, 1971, which mandates equal pay and service conditions for similar work.

The current friction ignited when the latest exemption lapsed on January 12, 2024. Although PGIMER applied for an extension, the CACLB deferred its decision, citing the pending High Court litigation. This legal vacuum and the uncertainty over the contract workers' status and pay parity led to employee unrest and the subsequent court petitions.

Conciliation, Court Deference, and Future Proceedings

During the recent hearing, Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, representing the Union of India, informed the bench that the substantive issues concerning the validity of the central government notifications and the associated service conditions are currently under active conciliation proceedings before the labour commissioner (central).

Respecting the statutory dispute resolution mechanism, the High Court decided to defer its own examination of the notification's validity. The bench recorded that the labour commissioner “is about to decide” the matter and formally stated its intention to await the outcome.

“As regards the validity of the notifications… the same will be taken up after the Labour Commissioner submits [a decision], or if it fails to take up the issue, the court will hear it in the month of September,” the bench ordered. This approach highlights a judicial preference for allowing administrative and quasi-judicial bodies to complete their statutory processes before the court intervenes on the substantive legal questions.

The court had previously, in its November 2024 interim order, directed the deputy chief labour commissioner (central) to endeavour to conclude the conciliation process within two months, indicating a desire for a swift resolution.

Legal Implications and Analysis for Practitioners

The High Court's handling of the PGIMER case offers several key takeaways for the legal community, particularly those in labour, administrative, and constitutional law:

• Balancing Fundamental Rights and Public Interest: The judgment is a classic example of the judiciary balancing the right to protest (an aspect of Article 19) with the fundamental Right to Life (Article 21), which implicitly includes the right to health and access to medical care. The court has decisively tilted the scales in favour of the latter, classifying hospital operations as an essential service where disruptions cannot be tolerated.

• The Potency of the Writ of Prohibition: The court's use of a writ of prohibition to preemptively ban strikes during conciliation is a strong assertion of its constitutional powers. By extending this prohibition pending further court permission, it has effectively circumscribed the statutory right to strike under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the context of this specific essential service.

• Judicial Oversight of Statutory Exemptions: The case underscores that exemptions under labour laws, such as Section 31 of the Contract Labour Act, are not a carte blanche. The court and administrative records confirm that such exemptions come with binding conditions, like wage parity, and failure to comply can become a focal point of litigation and labour unrest. This serves as a caution for other public and private sector entities relying on similar exemptions.

• Interplay between Courts and Conciliation: The High Court's decision to await the outcome of the conciliation proceedings demonstrates a respect for the statutory hierarchy of dispute resolution. However, its overarching ban on strikes shows it will not hesitate to use its writ jurisdiction to maintain public order and essential services, running a parallel track of judicial control alongside the administrative process.

In conclusion, while the petitions regarding immediate protests at PGIMER are now disposed of, the broader legal questions remain very much alive. The High Court has firmly insulated the hospital's functioning from industrial action, placing the onus on employee unions to seek judicial leave before any strike. The ultimate resolution of the workers' grievances now rests, in the first instance, with the labour commissioner, whose decision—or failure to decide—will determine the next phase of this significant legal battle in the High Court come September.