Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the strike by the employees of the State Transport Corporation was illegal under the Industrial Disputes Act and liable to be declared so in writ jurisdiction.
Analysis: The Corporation was treated as rendering a public utility service. The strike commenced after notice was given for only 14 days, whereas the statutory framework required the longer notice period and compliance with the conditions governing strikes in public utility services. The Court also relied on the admitted conciliation proceedings and the disruption caused to the travelling public, especially in rural areas. Reference was made to the settled principle that Government employees and employees of public utility services have no fundamental, legal, or moral right to strike, and that industrial disputes must ordinarily be pursued through the statutory machinery rather than by paralysing essential services.
Conclusion: The strike was declared illegal and the employees were directed to resume duties forthwith.
Ratio Decidendi: Employees engaged in public utility services cannot lawfully resort to strike in breach of the statutory restrictions under the Industrial Disputes Act, and a writ court may intervene to declare such a strike illegal where it gravely affects essential public services.