Alternative remedy and public employee strikes: exceptional facts justified writ jurisdiction, but no right to strike existed.

Judicial review under Articles 226, 227 and 32 is ordinarily exercised after the alternative remedy before the Tribunal is pursued, but exceptional factual circumstances may justify direct writ intervention where the Tribunal cannot grant effective relief in time. The Court found such extraordinary conditions here and treated the writ petitions as maintainable. It also reaffirmed that Government employees have no fundamental, statutory, moral, or equitable right to strike, since conduct rules prohibit strikes and public-sector strikes undermine administration and public welfare. The connected matters were disposed of with consequential directions for reinstatement and further administrative consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could entertain the writ petitions notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy before the Administrative Tribunal in the extraordinary factual situation. (ii) Whether Government employees have any fundamental, statutory, moral, or equitable right to strike.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could entertain the writ petitions notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy before the Administrative Tribunal in the extraordinary factual situation.

Analysis: The constitutional power of judicial review under Articles 226/227 and 32 is part of the basic structure, and ordinarily litigants must first approach the Tribunal, which functions as a court of first instance in its field. However, the record disclosed an unprecedented mass dismissal of employees and a large-scale breakdown of administration, together with the practical inability of the Tribunal to provide effective relief to thousands of affected employees in time. In such exceptional circumstances, insistence on the alternative remedy would deny justice, and the High Court was justified in entertaining the petitions.

Conclusion: Yes. The writ petitions were maintainable in the exceptional facts despite the alternative remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether Government employees have any fundamental, statutory, moral, or equitable right to strike.

Analysis: The settled law is that there is no fundamental right to strike, and no statutory provision confers such a right on Government employees. The governing conduct rules expressly prohibit strikes and related activities. A strike by public servants was held to be incompatible with the obligations of a democratic welfare State, because it paralyses public administration and harms the community at large. On that basis, neither moral nor equitable considerations could justify a claim to strike by Government employees.

Conclusion: No. Government employees have no fundamental, statutory, moral, or equitable right to strike.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the maintainability of the writ petitions in the extraordinary circumstances, affirmed the absence of any right of Government employees to strike, and disposed of the connected appeals and writ petitions with consequential directions for reinstatement and further administrative consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional power of judicial review cannot ordinarily be bypassed by the alternative-remedy rule, but exceptional circumstances may justify direct writ intervention; and Government employees possess no enforceable right to strike, whether fundamental, statutory, moral, or equitable.

---