As agitations by government employees bring Uttarakhand to a virtual halt, the Uttarakhand High Court steps in with a blanket ban
~By Govind Pant Raju in Lucknow
The Uttarakhand High Court has banned any strike in all essential government services of the state. A confederation of 27 employee associations comprising Uttarakhand government employees, teachers and corporation staff had started an indefinite strike on August 13 after three-month-long unsuccessful talks with the government.
While the state government put on a strict face, condemning the strike and commissioning a “no work no pay” rule, it did not have much effect on curbing the determination of the striking employees. But as the situation worsened with government hospital and other medical staff, government teachers and electricity board employees on strike, the High Court stepped in.
With all essential services coming to a halt, the Court put a blanket ban on the strikes through a PIL. A division bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Manoj Tiwari directed the state to prohibit such strikes in certain departments like education, public health, transport services, public works, irrigation and revenue. The Court itself was instrumental in the state invoking the “no work no pay” rule, taking larger public interest into consideration. The Court highlighted the tendency of the state government employees to resort to strikes without any genuine cause. These strikes cause extreme inconvenience to the public, with teachers and academicians joining in. However, even more alarming is doctors and paramedical staff going on strike without any consideration for the lives of their patients.
The Court directed that no employees in Uttarakhand, serving under the state government as well as public undertakings, including local authorities, shall resort to illegal strikes. It directed the state government to invoke Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1966, as adopted by Uttarakhand to prohibit strikes in certain spheres. The state government is also authorised to withdraw recognition to service associations in case employees resort to illegal strikes.
The state government was directed to impose a penalty, as provided under Section 4 of the Act, on any person who takes part in any illegal strike. The Court said: “The employees cannot hold the entire system to ransom. The employees, who resort to illegal strikes, are not entitled to salary. It shall be open to the state government to order break-in-service of the employees resorting to illegal strikes. All the Service Associations shall not go on illegal strikes or undertake go-slow practice with a view to disturb or obstruct the smooth functioning of the government. Members of the Service Essentials are directed not to indulge directly or indirectly in any act so as to intimidate or obstruct or prevent any government servant from attending office or carrying out his official duties.”
After the Court’s decision, various employee associations withdrew their strikes with instances of differences between associations cropping up. A few are considering going ahead with the legal battle. Prahlad Singh, chief coordinator of the Employees United Front, said: “We are extremely disappointed with the verdict. Our decision to go on strike came up after a failed three-month-long process of talks with the government.” He added that while they had put everything at stake for the state, it was not reciprocated.
However, the decision also brought some relief to the employees as the government has been instructed to form a high-level committee in eight weeks for taking up some of the legitimate issues raised by the employees. This committee will meet the employee associations at least once every three months, taking up their demands for consideration.
All’s well that ends well.