Labour rights are a cornerstone of social justice. They protect workers against exploitation and ensure dignity in employment. Among the many tools available to workers, the strike has always held symbolic and practical power. A strike represents collective resistance and the ability of workers to withhold labour in order to demand fair wages, safer conditions, or social security. Yet, in India, the right to strike occupies an uneasy space. While recognized as a legitimate weapon of workers, it is not considered a fundamental right, and its exercise is heavily regulated. This article examines the constitutional framework, statutory laws, judicial interpretations, and contemporary debates surrounding the right to strike in India.
The Constitutional Framework
The Indian Constitution, unlike some others, does not explicitly recognize the right to strike. However, Article 19(1)(c) guarantees the right to form associations and unions. Trade unions argue that the right to strike is a natural extension of this freedom, for collective bargaining without the possibility of strike is often toothless.
At the same time, Article 19(4) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this freedom in the interests of public order, morality, or the sovereignty of India. Thus, while unionization is protected, the strike itself is not constitutionally guaranteed as an absolute right.
Article 21, which protects life and liberty, has occasionally been invoked in contexts where striking workers faced excessive repression. However, courts have consistently drawn a line: there is no fundamental right to strike.
Statutory Recognition of Strikes
Although not a fundamental right, strikes are recognized under labour legislation. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA), now partly replaced by the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, sets out the procedure for lawful strikes. Workers must give prior notice, particularly in public utility services, and cannot strike during the pendency of conciliation or adjudication proceedings. Failure to comply renders a strike illegal.
The IDA also distinguishes between a “strike” and a “lockout,” the latter being the employer’s weapon of withholding work. Both are regulated to minimize disruption while preserving bargaining power.
The Trade Unions Act, 1926 gives registered unions immunity from certain civil and criminal liabilities when calling strikes, provided they act in furtherance of trade disputes and follow the law.
Judicial Approach to Strikes
Indian courts have repeatedly clarified that while strikes are recognized, they are not fundamental rights.
In All India Bank Employees’ Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (1962), the Supreme Court held that the right to strike is not a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c). The Court emphasized that the freedom to form unions does not necessarily imply the right to achieve every object of the union through strike.
In Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1962), the Court upheld the right of government employees to peaceful demonstration but clarified that the right to strike is not included in fundamental freedoms.
A strong statement came in T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2003), where the Court held that government employees have “no fundamental, statutory, or moral right to strike.” It observed that strike is not justified in essential services where public interest is at stake.
These judgments establish that the judiciary views strikes as a statutory right subject to regulation, not as an inalienable constitutional guarantee.
Strikes in Essential Services
One of the most contentious issues is strikes in essential services like transport, healthcare, and government administration. Courts have often restricted such strikes, citing public inconvenience. For instance, doctors’ strikes have been frowned upon, with courts holding that the right to life of patients outweighs the demands of doctors.
Legislations like the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA) empower governments to prohibit strikes in essential sectors. This has often led to tension between workers’ demands and public welfare.
The Right to Strike and Collective Bargaining
Despite judicial caution, strikes remain an important tool of collective bargaining. Without the possibility of strike, unions would have little leverage in negotiations. In many cases, the threat of a strike itself brings employers to the table. Strikes have historically played a role in securing better wages, maternity benefits, and workplace safety.
The challenge lies in balancing the rights of workers with the interests of the economy and the public. Courts have increasingly emphasized conciliation, mediation, and arbitration as alternatives to strikes. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 seeks to streamline this by mandating notice and promoting dispute resolution mechanisms.
Contemporary Relevance
In modern India, strikes are no longer limited to factory floors. Public sector employees, teachers, bank staff, and even IT workers have resorted to strikes. General strikes called by trade unions have occasionally paralyzed entire states. While critics call these disruptive, supporters see them as expressions of democratic protest.
Globalization has also complicated matters. Multinational corporations often resist strikes, preferring individual contracts over collective bargaining. With the rise of gig economy platforms like food delivery and ride-sharing, workers face new challenges in organizing strikes, as their legal status as “employees” is itself contested.
The COVID-19 pandemic added another dimension. Migrant workers, nurses, and delivery agents highlighted unsafe working conditions and delayed payments, leading to renewed debates on the legitimacy of strike actions even during emergencies.
Conclusion
The right to strike in India occupies a middle ground: it is not a constitutional guarantee, but neither is it outlawed. It exists as a statutory right, circumscribed by procedures and limitations. Courts recognize its importance but also stress that it cannot override public interest.