2003 (8) TMI 581 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Termination of government employees for striking.
2. Maintainability of writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
3. Right to strike for government employees.
4. Reinstatement of dismissed employees.
5. Validity of Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002 and Ordinance No. 3 of 2003.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Termination of Government Employees for Striking:
The Tamil Nadu Government's unprecedented action of terminating the services of all employees who resorted to strike was challenged. The High Court of Madras, through interim orders, directed the State Government to keep suspension and dismissal of employees in abeyance until further orders and asked the employees to resume duty. This interim order was later set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court, which directed the employees to approach the Administrative Tribunal first.

2. Maintainability of Writ Petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution:
The Division Bench of the High Court held that writ petitions were not maintainable without exhausting the alternative remedy of approaching the Administrative Tribunal. However, the Supreme Court reiterated that under Article 226, the High Court is empowered to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in unprecedented situations. It was emphasized that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is part of the inviolable basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be excluded even when an alternative remedy exists.

3. Right to Strike for Government Employees:
The judgment clarified that government employees do not have a fundamental, statutory, or equitable/moral right to strike. It was noted that:
- Fundamental Right: There is no fundamental right to strike, as established in previous judgments like Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar and Radhey Shyam Sharma v. The Post Master General.
- Statutory Right: There is no statutory provision empowering employees to strike. The Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 explicitly prohibit strikes.
- Moral/Equitable Right: Strikes by government employees cannot be justified on moral or equitable grounds as they cause significant disruption to public services and harm the society at large.

4. Reinstatement of Dismissed Employees:
The Supreme Court suggested reinstating the dismissed employees, which was accepted by the State Government. It was agreed that:
- Employees would be reinstated except those arrested or against whom FIRs were lodged.
- Reinstatement would be subject to employees tendering an unconditional apology and undertaking to abide by Rule 22 of the Conduct Rules.
- The period of absence would be regularized without treating it as a break in service.
- Employees who indulged in violence or incited others to strike would face disciplinary action.

5. Validity of Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002 and Ordinance No. 3 of 2003:
The Supreme Court did not address the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002, and Ordinance No. 3 of 2003 due to the State Government's agreement to reinstate most of the employees. The Court appreciated the reasonable stand taken by the parties and hoped that the Government would consider the grievances of the employees appropriately.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals and writ petitions, emphasizing the lack of any right to strike for government employees and the necessity of maintaining discipline. The Court highlighted the importance of alternative methods for grievance redressal and the role of Administrative Tribunals, urging the authorities to ensure their effective functioning. The judgment underscored the balance between employees' rights and duties in a democratic welfare state.