Abstract
The development of labour jurisprudence is important field covering the aspect of welfare of labour. In the same, the way judiciary has contributed time and again by pronouncing judgements on crucial aspects which in turn provide further clarity. Further, with regard to a particular aspect of right to strike the role played by judiciary has been understood as a important player in the development of labour jurisprudence.
Page Contents
Introduction
“Jurisprudence” is derived from the Latin word “Jurisprudentia” which is a combination of two words that is ‘Juris’ and ‘Prudence’ which derives the meaning as “knowledge of Law “. Jurisprudence is a method of study and not of law of one particular nation. It is a study of nature of law, nature of legal institution and its relationship with its society. Similarly the concept of industrial jurisprudence is comprised of two terms industrial and jurisprudence which together conveys the meaning that knowledge of law concerning the area of industrial development along with its attached objects.
Industrial jurisprudence being not static and rigid allows the judiciary aside of laws to step in and provide social justice. The role played by judiciary in the industrial development is indeed important to grasp the overall picture of industrial jurisprudence. But firstly, it is important to understand the evolution of Industrial jurisprudence in our country.
Evolution of Industrial Jurisprudence
India was predominantly an agricultural nation before it gained its independence, hence industrial law was not well developed. The state adopted a laissez-faire policy and it was seen to be prevalent in the industries existed. In the unstable circumstances that existed prior to World War II, state action in the resolution of industrial conflicts became necessary. The Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 is a successor to the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act of 1938.
Overall, the pre-Independence labour legislation’s main objective was to –
♦ To improve the working conditions for factory
♦ Promote industrial peace
♦ Even if it existed in our nation in a rudimentary state prior to independence, its development can be seen in with the increase of industrial law cases that the Supreme Court and High Courts decided as well as through the expansion of labour and industrial
In our nation, an entirely novel field of law called as Industrial Jurisprudence has emerged throughout the course of the 20th century. Despite having its roots in the industrial revolution, industrial law is mostly a product of the post-independence era.It right away impacts a sizeable portion of our nation’s population, which consists of industrialists, workers, and their families. And those who get impacted indirectly also comprised of a large amount of population.
This branch of law basically changed the structure of traditional law concerned with master and servant and had basically cut down the old theory related to laissez faire theory. Similarly there is change in the concept of master and servant. One who invests capital is no more a master and one who puts in labour is no more a servant. They are employer and employees, the former may hire the latter but he can no more fire them at his will.
♦ The important aspect that comes with growth of industrial jurisprudence is the aspect of social justice and so does the role of This gained a backing after the commencement of our constitution as it injected within itself the provisions for social justice.
♦ The aspect of industrialisation in India was based on the program of planning and mainly accepted after thirties. To understand the prior picture it is important to take into account the plantation industry of Assam as it was the first to attract the industrial During that time , the situations that prevailed reflected only the sheer hard practices adopted by employer upon employees. For instance, employees were not allowed to leave the tea gardens. A number of Acts were passed from 1863 onward, but they only protected the interests of the employers.
This in itself highlights that the role played by judiciary is of immense importance as it helped in the needed progress of the industrial jurisprudence by catering towards the needs of workers and by resolving the problems faced by such workers. It basically helped in stabilizing the situations of rights of workers and promoted social justice in the area of industrial jurisprudence.
Industrial Dispute Act and Welfare of Labour
Labour Jurisprudence involves the struggles of classes and social stress prevalent within them and the role played by judiciary in resolving issues emerged in context of the same. Issues likes bonded labour system, recognition of right to strike, formation of trade union and others has been emerged before the courts time and again and the decision of court helped in overall growth of labor jurisprudence as a whole. Further, one such issue has been taken and the role played by judiciary is considered to understand the importance of judiciary in labour jurisprudence.
The Industrial Disputes Act (IDA), 1947 is a central legislation in India that primarily deals with the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes between employers and employees. The act has played a crucial role in the development of labour jurisprudence in India by providing statutory recognition to the rights of workers to form unions and bargain collectively for better working conditions.
The IDA also recognizes the right of workers to strike, subject to certain conditions and restrictions. This right is considered essential for workers to negotiate better working conditions and wages.
Here further the aspect of collective bargaining and particularly the aspect of strike is considered to understand the role of judiciary in the same.
Right to Strike
The right to strike is a right of workers recognized under the Industrial Dispute Act in India. Section 2(q) defines a strike 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.”
the right to strike is not only recognized but also is being regulated under the Industrial Dispute Act. The Act provides for specific procedures that need to be followed before a strike can be legally initiated. This includes giving notice of a strike to the employer, the appropriate government authority and any conciliation officer, who will then attempt to resolve the dispute through negotiation.
Role of Judiciary
The role played by judiciary has been a crucial aspect in the development of labour jurisprudence as a whole. When the same is to be understood from one aspect particularly which in the present analysis is right to strike, various cases has been taken into account through which time and again the importance of judiciary is highlighted.
- Legality of Strike:
The judiciary has the power to determine the legality of strikes in India, courts have laid down certain conditions for a strike to be considered legal, such as giving notice to the employer, providing a reasonable cause for the strike and ensuring that the strike is peaceful. In addition, the judiciary has also recognized the right of employers to take disciplinary action against employees who go on an illegal strike.
- Interpretation and Implementation:
One of the primary roles of the judiciary is to interpret the Industrial Disputes Act and ensure that it is implemented in a fair and just manner. The courts have the power to hear cases related to strikes and issue orders regarding the legality of strikes, and the conditions and procedures that must be followed.
- Essential Services:
The aspect of Essential services maintenance act has been also covered by the judiciary as it has laid down guidelines for the imposition of essential services maintenance act (ESMA) during strikes. ESMA is a law that prohibits strikes in certain essential services like hospitals, transport, and electricity supply, to ensure that these services are not disrupted. The Supreme Court of India has held that ESMA can be invoked only as a last resort when all other measures to resolve the strike have failed.
- Compensation:
Furthermore, the judiciary has also acknowledged that strikes are a legitimate means of expressing the grievances of workers. The courts have recognized the importance of collective bargaining and have encouraged employers to negotiate with workers to resolve disputes. In cases where the strike is found to be illegal, the courts have ordered compensation for any loss suffered by the employer due to the strike. Additionally, the courts have also granted relief to workers who have suffered on account of participating in a lawful strike.
- Appointment of Conciliation Officer:
the judiciary can also appoint a conciliation officer or a board to resolve the dispute between the workers and employers. This officer or board can facilitate negotiations between the two parties, and if an agreement is reached, it can be enforceable under law.
If the negotiations fail, the matter can then be referred to a labor court, industrial tribunal or a National Industrial Tribunal, depending on the nature of the dispute. These courts have the power to decide disputes related to wages, working hours, working conditions, and other employment-related issues.
Important Case Laws
In order to understand the role of judiciary in more better sense with regard to the aspect of strike, the following case laws has been undertaken to be studied in lieu of the same:
♦ “In the case of Indian Petrochemicals Corporation v. Shramik Sena case, the Supreme Court of India held that a strike can be legal only if it meets the following conditions:
1. It must be in support of a demand made by workers in relation to employment or non-employment or the terms of
2. The demands made by the workers must be
3. The strike must be preceded by a notice of strike given in the prescribed manner to the
4. The strike must take place after the expiration of the notice
5. The strike must be peaceful and not involve any violence or damage to
6. The workers participating in the strike must not engage in any coercive or intimidating conduct towards non-striking workers or the management.
7. The strike must be in furtherance of a trade union’s objectives and not motivated by personal
8. The workers must exhaust all other remedies available to them, such as conciliation and arbitration, before resorting to a strike.”
The court also held that an illegal strike can lead to disciplinary action, including termination of employment. However, the workers can still approach the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for relief in case of wrongful termination.
This case laid down the legal framework for strikes in India and emphasized the importance of peaceful and legitimate demands by workers, as well as the need for compliance with legal requirements. This case also highlights the significance of the role of trade unions in representing workers’ interests and ensuring that their demands are met through lawful means.
♦ In T.K. Rangarajan v Tamil Nadu (2003) 6 sec 581, the Tamil Nadu government terminated the services of all employees who resorted to The two important issues raised in this case are-
1. It is a fundamental right to go on strike?
2. In this case does the employee have statutory right to go on strike.
With respect to first issue, the court refeered to the judgment of Kameswar Prasad and others Vs. State of Bihar and another in which the Supreme Court held that there exists no fundamental right to strike. The Supreme Court of India observes that there is no statutory provision empowering the employees to go on strike.
With respect to second issue, the court observes that there is prohibition to go on strikes under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. Rule 22 provides that “no government servant shall engage himself in strike on incitements there to or in similar activities” Though the Supreme Court of India did not impose a blanket ban on all strikes. The court further declares that the said strike to be illegal in view of Rule 22 which prohibits government servants from going on strike. Thus, The Apex Court held that Government staffs have no statutory, moral or fundamental right to strike.
♦ In Harish Uppal (Ex-Capt) v. Union of India (2003) 2 sec 45, “the Supreme Court reiterated that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott and not even a token strike to espouse their ”
♦ In Dharma Singh Rajput v. Bank of India, “it was held that right to strike as a mode of redress of the legitimate grievance of the workers is recognized by the Industrial Disputes However, this right is to be exercised after complying with the conditions mentioned in the Act and also after exhausting the intermediate and salutary remedy for conciliation.”
♦ In B. R. Singh v Union of India it was held that, “the strike is a form of demonstration. Though the right to strike or right to demonstrate is not a fundamental right, it is recognized as a mode of redress for resolving the grievances of the workers. Though this right has been recognized by almost all democratic countries but it is not an absolute “
Suggestions And Conclusion
Firstly, for better protection of both employer and employees right it is required that peaceful measures for resolving dispute should be adhered in a strict sense. Secondly, the implementation process should become stronger and concerted efforts must be put both by the employer and employee in adhering to the important guidelines provided by courts time and again as this will surely result into development of labour jurisprudence as a whole. Thirdly, there should be a monitoring machinery which ensures that proper implementation of the guidlines, rules and procedures take place.
Overall the role of the judiciary in regulating strikes is indeed vital in maintaining law and order and ensuring that the interests of both workers and employers are protected. The courts have played a significant role in balancing the competing interests of the parties and have developed a jurisprudence that recognizes the importance of strikes as a legitimate means of expressing grievances while also upholding the rule of law and social stability. While strikes can be disruptive and often result in economic losses, the judiciary has recognized that they are essential in upholding workers’ rights and bargaining power.
It is essential to have a well-functioning judicial system that can swiftly and effectively resolve disputes related to strikes to ensure that the impact is minimized. The courts have encouraged parties to engage in effective negotiations and use alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to prevent the need for strikes.
Author Bio
