B.R. Singh v Union of India (1989)

It is settled that there is no fundamental right to strike. This case shows how the Supreme Court nonetheless protects strikes within that limit. Justice Ahmadi linked the fundamental right to form unions under Article 19(1)(c) to the union's need to bargain, and bargaining to the ability to demonstrate — of which strike is one form. The right to strike is "an important weapon in the armoury of the workers", and though not a fundamental right, it is a recognised mode of redress.

Just as important for exams, the Court held that a strike is illegal only if it falls foul of the specific provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (s. 24 read with ss. 10(3), 10A(4A), 22 and 23). A management cannot call a strike "illegal" merely because it disapproves of it.

The Trade Fair Authority Employees' Union was pressing three demands on the Trade Fair Authority of India (TFAI): upward revision of wages, regularisation of at least 50% of casual or daily-rated workers, and housing. Assurances were given, but no decision followed. The Union asked permission to hold a general body meeting on 19 January 1987 during lunch hours; permission was refused at the last minute, but the meeting went ahead and resolved to strike on 21 January 1987 in protest. Notice was served the same day.

The management suspended the Union's President, Vice-President and executive members, and then the remaining office bearers and activists. The strike was called off from 24 January 1987 (according to the Union, because the President of India was to inaugurate AHARA '87 on 25 January). Casual workers who did not sign an undertaking were denied work. On 3 March 1987 the Board dismissed the 12 office bearers under Rule 32 — which allows penalties without inquiry where the Board is satisfied an inquiry is not practicable — alleging threats, intimidation of the disciplinary authority and witnesses, and an atmosphere of violence. A driver, Raju, and two daily-rated security guards were also terminated.

Five writ petitions under Article 32 followed. TFAI argued the workers should be sent to the Industrial Tribunal or High Court, and that the strike was illegal so no relief lay. The Supreme Court had a Labour Court judge inquire into the facts; his report largely favoured the workmen.

1. Is the right to strike protected, and was this strike illegal so as to disentitle the workers to relief?
2. Was there evidence of force or violence justifying the dismissals without inquiry under Rule 32?
3. What relief should the dismissed, suspended and casual workers receive?

All the writ petitions were allowed with directions.

The right to form unions and the right to strike

The Court rejected TFAI's contention that since the strike was illegal the workers were entitled to no relief. It began: "The right to form association or unions is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution." It then reasoned: "The necessity to form unions is obviously for voicing the demands and grievances of labour. Trade unionists act as mouthpieces of labour." A union's bargaining power "would be considerably reduced if it is not permitted to demonstrate."

On strike itself: "Strike in a given situation is only a form of demonstration." And: "The right to demonstrate and, therefore, the right to strike is an important weapon in the armoury of the workers." Then the crucial qualification — the right to strike, "Though not raised to the high pedestal of a fundamental right, it is recognised as a mode of redress for resolving the grievances of workers." Further, "the right to strike is not absolute under our industrial jurisprudence and restrictions have been placed on it."

When is a strike illegal?

The Court walked through the restrictions:

• s. 10(3) and s. 10A(4A) let the appropriate Government prohibit the continuance of a strike connected with a dispute referred to adjudication or arbitration. No reference had been made here.
• s. 22 prohibits strikes in a public utility service without meeting its conditions; TFAI indisputably was not a public utility service.
• s. 23 bars strikes in breach of contract during conciliation, adjudication or arbitration proceedings, or while a settlement or award operates. Nothing of the kind was pending or in force.

"Under Section 24 a strike will be illegal only if it is commenced or declared in contravention of Section 22 or 23 or is continued in contravention of an order made under Section 10(3) or 10A(4A) of the I.D. Act." No other provision was shown, so the contention that the strike was illegal was rejected.

No convincing evidence of violence

On the evidence, the Court found "there were angry protests and efforts to obstruct the officers from entering the precincts of TFAI but there is no convincing evidence of use of force or violence." The union leaders' speeches were harsh and such language should have been avoided, but nothing destructive happened. The Court declined to find fault with either side: "it would be unwise and futile to embark upon a fault finding mission." It held that "while some of the Union leaders acted in haste, they do not appear to have been actuated by any oblique motive", and that "The interest of the institution must be paramount to all concerned including the workmen", while the Court could not be oblivious to labour's economic hardship.

Relief

• The 12 dismissed office bearers: the circumstances did not exist for exercising the extraordinary power under Rule 32; the dismissals were set aside, with reinstatement and six months' back wages.
• Raju: the cancellation of his appointment was penal, based on alleged misconduct, and "cannot be sustained as it was taken without hearing the delinquent."
• Casual workers: a seniority list to be prepared, work restored, 85 seniormost absorbed in regular employment within three months, and six months' notional wages distributed.
• Peon Umed Singh and guard Bansi Dhar reinstated with six months' back wages; guard Vipti Singh, who had signed the attendance register for days he was absent, reinstated without back wages.
• TFAI to pay Rs 5,000 costs to the Union.

The fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) to form unions exists so that labour can voice its demands and bargain; the right to strike, as a form of demonstration, is an important weapon of workers and a recognised mode of redress, though it is not itself a fundamental right and is not absolute. Under the Industrial Disputes Act a strike is illegal only where s. 24 makes it so — i.e. where it contravenes s. 22 or s. 23 or continues in breach of an order under s. 10(3) or s. 10A(4A). A strike outside those provisions cannot be treated as illegal to deny workers relief, and participation in it does not by itself justify dismissing union leaders without inquiry.

• Is the right to strike a fundamental right? Discuss. The answer is no — but use this case to show that the Court treats it as a legitimate and important weapon linked to the Article 19(1)(c) right to form unions. Quote the "weapon in the armoury" line and the "high pedestal" qualification together.
• When is a strike illegal under the Industrial Disputes Act? Set out ss. 22, 23 and 24 and the prohibitory powers under ss. 10(3) and 10A(4A), and cite B.R. Singh for the proposition that illegality comes only from these provisions.
• Problem question: a non-public-utility employer dismisses union leaders without inquiry after a short strike, calling it illegal. Apply the s. 24 test; if no reference, conciliation or settlement was in play, the strike was not illegal, and summary dismissal needs genuine grounds that make an inquiry impracticable.
• Link it to All India Bank Employees' Association v National Industrial Tribunal (no fundamental right to strike) and to T.K. Rangarajan (2003) as the chain on the right to strike.