Learnings from Case 3 - Supreme Court Judgment in The

Case of Tamil Nadu Government Staff Strike

The main outcome of my studying this case is the change in perception

about the concept of Strike. After years of observing many a strike in the
country, a strike has always been taken as an employee’s right,
regardless of the form and nature of employment of the employee. This
case provided an altogether new angle on the same. The marked
difference in the Government’s treatment and repercussions of a strike by
an employee of the private sector as opposed to one of the public sector
was noteworthy. The most important learnings in this aspect are ‘how the
right to strikes considered not only illegal, but also immoral and is not a
part and parcel of the fundamental rights (especially the Freedom of
Association) as understood by many.

The next main learning from the case was a much clearer picture of the
concept of grievance redressal and its implications. Theory of Industrial
Relations stresses upon us the importance of grievance redressal
mechanisms and we often observe the different ways in which this is done
in different organizations. This is with regards to employees who have the
right to strike (in abeyance with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947). After
having heard so much about the importance of Grievance Redressal and
how its failure can wreak havoc to an organization, industry or even the
nation’s economy, it is understood that the Grievance Redressal
mechanisms ought to be highly robust in the Public Sector (considering
the fact that the employees in Public Service do not have a recognized
right to strike). The absence of this mechanism and its jarring implications
were very clearly outlined in the case.

A third learning from the case (something which is already known, but was
very strongly emphasized through this case) is the power of a writ. Writ,
already understood to be a powerful instrument, has proved to be one of
ultimate power (one that can make the High Court of a State take up a
case that was meant to be handled by the Industrial Tribunal).

Something that has been quite startling in this case though is the power
of Employee Unions. We all theoretically understand these Unions to be
those that help employees form a collective and negotiate and if
necessary, fight for their rights. But the Unions which instigated the Strike
in the first place were those who were responsible for the Strike, but were
never punished or arrested for the same, something which was keenly
observed by the Supreme Court while allowing the behaviour of the
employees to be one of the ‘herd’ mentality. The startling fact is where
these Trade Unions and their leaders went when their members were
being arrested and tormented in prison. The Unions which stepped up to
fight for the cut in benefits seems to have moved out of the scene when it
came to fighting for those who were arrested and also the bulk of them
who had been terminated in the first place.

A corollary to the above point is the failure of the Collective Bargaining

mechanism in this case. Unions, whose whole duty was to ensure the well
being of their members, those who are facilitated to do the same through
Collective Bargaining, seem to have failed at using the weapon to their
benefit. It is understandable that the effort failed since the Government
was reluctant to take any action. But the bigger issue here is if the
powerful weapon of Collective Bargaining fails, without even the option to
resort to any form of protest (which includes work stoppage or slow down)
or strike, there seems to be no other way out for these employees. Hence
the issue to reconsider here is if Collective Bargaining indeed is as
powerful a weapon as is claimed, especially in Public Service.

A fact also observed in the case is that Public Service is not regarded to
be of equal importance in all countries, since it has not even merited a
mention in the ILO Standards with respect to the right to strike of the
Public Servants.