7/29/2019 MUL & TN

1/29

By:Prem Joseph - 12020841152Shraddha Verma - 12020841166Shubhika Lal - 12020841169

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

2/29

AIADMK (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) StateGovernment eroded the pensions and other rights of thegovernment employees in their state.

The strike was a product of resistance against this action Started on 2nd July 2003 by the Unions affiliated to INTUC,

CITU, AITUC, HMS, LPF. Approximately 90% of the public sector workforce, i.e., close

to a million workers went on strike Chief Minister Jayalalithaa rammed through and emergency

amendment on July 4, this gave her the power to dismissstrikers and to impose fines and jail terms an anyone foundguilty of striking or instigating a strike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Anna_Dravida_Munnetra_Kazhagamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Anna_Dravida_Munnetra_Kazhagamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Anna_Dravida_Munnetra_Kazhagamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Anna_Dravida_Munnetra_Kazhagamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Anna_Dravida_Munnetra_Kazhagamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Anna_Dravida_Munnetra_Kazhagamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Anna_Dravida_Munnetra_Kazhagamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Anna_Dravida_Munnetra_Kazhagamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Anna_Dravida_Munnetra_Kazhagamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Anna_Dravida_Munnetra_Kazhagamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Anna_Dravida_Munnetra_Kazhagamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Anna_Dravida_Munnetra_Kazhagam

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

3/29

Over the next few days, almost 200,000 workers weresacked. Workers not only lost their jobs, in many cases theirhouses as well.

This resulted into a lot of protests where the police madearrests.

A total of 2211 detentions On July 11, the TN High Court dismissed legal petitions to

overturn the sackings on the grounds that the workers hadnot sought reinstatement through the State AdministrativeTribunal a body consisting of one judge already inundatedwith cases. The High Court agreed to only one point of thepetitions: the release of those who had been arrested.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

4/29

When the strike ended and no broad campaign against the sackings,the Indian Supreme Court seized on the opportunity to establish afar-reaching precedent.

On July 24, a panel of two judges declared that employees did nothave any fundamental right to strike and that such illegal strikes hadto be dealt with firmly by authorities. It suggested, but did notorder, that the state government reinstate the sacked workers,provided that they offered an unconditional apology.

Following the reinstatement of some 165,000 workers, the SupremeCourt brought down its final judgment on August 6 which dismissedthe challenge to the ESMA law and declared that employees hadno fundamental, legal, moral or equitable right to strike.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

5/29

In a 21-page ruling thoroughly permeated with hostility to theworking class, thejudges declared: No political party ororganisation can claim a right to paralyse the economic andindustrial activities of a state or nation or inconvenience citizens.

After stating that strike action was mostlymisused, they suggested that, for redressing grievances, employees should do morework honestly, diligently and effectively to impress theiremployer.

On August 12, Chief Minister Jayalalithaa began steps toderegister 26 major trade unions and other 200 affiliated unions.

Recognition of the JACTO and COTA federations was withdrawn. More than 6,000 dismissed workers accused ofviolence and

instigating others to strike have not been reinstated and are tobe dragged before a panel of three retired judges from theMadras High Court.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

6/29

The Courts have also relied on the principle that each persons

fundamental rights cannot be exercised in a manner that unduly

interferes with the rights and freedoms of other citizen.

In 1998 the Kerala High Court observed as follows:There cannot be

any doubt that the fundamental rights of the people as a whole cannotbe subservient to the claim of fundamental right of an individual or

only a section for the people.

The Kerala High Court went on to say: No political party or

organization can claim that it is entitled to paralyze the industry andcommerce in the entire State or nation.

In Tamil Nadu, the Government Servants Rules of 1973 expressly

prohibited government servants in the State from engaging in strikes

or inciting others to do so.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

7/29

Strong comments about the justification for having the strike by TheAll India State Government Federation. To view the page, CLICKHERE

The All India State Government Employees Federation notes with deep

concern and anguish that the Division Bench of Supreme Court of the countryby their verdict on 21 July03 has not only upheld the arbitrary dismissal ofabout two hundred thousand state government employees and teachers whotook part in the state-wide strike beginning on 2 July03, but highly justified themost autocratic repressive measures of the Tamilnadu Government by terming

the strike illegal and stating that the Jayalalitha Government has sent a toughmessage that maladministration can be caused in this way.

This is most unfortunate and obviously a open support for the most vindictiveaction against the employees and teachers by the political leadership of theGovernment and the bureaucracy to suppress a justified collective action by

the employees and teachers for redressal of their grievances when all othermeans of negotiated settlement failed.

http://tradeunionindia.org/miscellaneous/public_rights.htmhttp://tradeunionindia.org/miscellaneous/public_rights.htmhttp://tradeunionindia.org/miscellaneous/public_rights.htmhttp://tradeunionindia.org/miscellaneous/public_rights.htm

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

8/29

Legal Action taken

No Fundamental right to strike

No legal/ statutory right o strike No moral or equitable justification to strike

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

9/29

The working class has indisputably earned the right to strike as anindustrial action after a long struggle, so much so that the relevantindustrial legislation recognizes it as their implied right.

A worker has no other means of defending her/his real wage other

than seeking an increased money wage. When they strike work, it is not the authorities who suffer a loss of

income or disruption of their income generating process but thegeneral public. Here, authorities come to a negotiating table mainly

under political pressure or in deference to public opinion. The right to strike is organically linked with the right to collective

bargaining and will continue to remain an inalienable part of variousmodes of response/expression by the working people, wherever theemployer-employee relationship exists, whether recognized or not.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

10/29

Strikes that affect the public interest at large shouldnot be allowed to strike.

Employees of essential services should have different

set of provisions for safeguarding their rights andhaving their demands put on table with sufficientattention to them by a grievance handling cell.

If workers in essential services were to be allowed tostrike the lives, health, safety of persons and securityof the country would be irreparably at stake.

As these services are essential to public in general andthis will affect the well-being of the country, strikesshould not be allowed.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

11/29

There is no fundamental right to go on strike: Law on this subject is

well settled and it has been repeatedly held by the Court that the

employees have no fundamental right to resort to strike. There is no

legal / statutory right to go on strike.

There is no statutory provision empowering the employees to go on

strike. Further, there is prohibition to go on strike under the Tamil

Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 (hereinafter

referred to as "the Conduct Rules"). Rule 22 provides that "no

Government servant shall engage himself in strike or in incitements

thereto or in similar activities."

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

12/29

Rule 22-A provides that "no Government servant shall

conduct any procession or hold or address any meeting

in any part of any open ground adjoining any

Government Office or inside any Office premises

during office hours on any working day

outside office hours or on holidays, save with the prior

permission of the head of the Department or head of

office, as the case may be.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

13/29

The Court also ruled that such reinstatement was to be on condition that the

workers tendered an unconditionalapology and agreed to abide by the no

strike rules of the State. The action of the Indian Courts appears to be in

conformity with the relevant Conventions of the International Labour

Organization (ILO) that confer a right to form and join unions and engage in

collective bargaining, but do not confer a right to strike.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

14/29

The Indian Supreme Court that the Constitution of India adopts the doctrine of

Separation of Powers as known to Western Constitutionalism. It is well known that the

VII Schedule of the Constitution deals legislative powers as distributed between the

Union and State Governments. It is clear that Entry 22 in Concurrent List deals with

labour relations. Pronouncing an opinion on the right of employees to strike is an act of

legislation and the act of the Supreme Court in pronouncing its view is a judicial

legislation, which should be frowned by the competent legislative forums. It is

unnecessary to add to the informed readers that the finding of Supreme Court in the

present case that the workers do not have any moral or equitable right to strike is just

trivial and do not deserve any discussions.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

15/29

Government employees cannot claim that they can take the society atransom by

going on strike. Even if there is injustice to some extent, as presumed by such

employees, in a democratic welfare State, they have to resort to the machinery

provided under different statutory provisions for redressal of their grievances.

Strike as a weapon is mostly misused which results in chaos and total

maladministration.

There exists other alternative mechanism for their grievances. Such as

Meaningful dialogue-collective bargaining

Written complaints

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

16/29

The issue of recognition of the union by company management, thus severely curtailing the

powers and action of the union as a bargaining agent on behalf of workers.. Without a law on

compulsory recognition of trade unions, there is no legal obligation on employers to recognize a

union or engage in collective bargaining. Management can refuse to recognise a particular union

and refuse to engage in collective bargaining with a union. Or they can choose one union over

another for their own benefit. Management is free to recognise both minority and majority trade

unions as bargaining agents and is free to make collective agreements with their pocket union

(management controlled union) which are then imposed on the workers. Only in a few states, such

as Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, are there provisions in the statutes for

the recognition of unions which have shown they represent a specific percentage of the workforce

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

17/29

By:Prem Joseph - 12020841152Shraddha Verma - 12020841166Shubhika Lal - 12020841169

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

18/29

Maruti Udyog set up in 1970s by SanjayGandhi.

Location Gurgaon, Haryana

Year Happening

Feb,1982 Bankruptcy

Oct,1982 Joint venture with Suzukicorporation

Dec,1983 Production and sale started

Dec,1985 Captured more than half ofmarket share

1994-1995 Second and third plant

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

19/29

Serious issue with government inappointment of the Managing director.

Called for International arbitration. Amicable settlement. Planned to increase sales and brought new

models. But suffered a decline in market share . 2000-2001- market share slipped to 60% from

82.8%.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

20/29

Market share dipped. Existing models stripped down with lower

price. Less customer bookings and advances. Maruti borrowed funds for meeting working

capital requirements. Invested 14000 million in P&M and

promotional activities.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

21/29

To motivate the workmen for higherproductivity, management introduced anincentive scheme.

The incentive scheme was focused on higherproductivity. the union adopted a totally non-cooperative

attitude and instead of appreciating of theground realities have demanded an incentivescheme which is highly unreasonable havingexcessive financial implications which thecompany cant afford.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

22/29

Concerned revision of production incentive

Finalization of annual production target

Improvement in annual pension plans.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

23/29

Wearing black badges and not wearinguniforms.

Tools down Go-Slow Slogan shouting Gherao Issued a notice that if not negotiated they

would go for a hunger strike,fast untill deathand tool down strike.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

24/29

11th Oct: Notified new incentive scheme.

12th Oct: Good conduct undertaking

Plant production further down by 15%. Workers called it an illegal lock-out.

Management called it an illegal strike.

Workers did not agree with the incentivestating it to be too little and too manyconditions.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

25/29

Oct 2000: Maruti witnessed death of 3 personsone who was employed with the company.

Unions questioned the safety measuresfollowed by the company.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

26/29

1000 workers in Union signed the goodconduct undertaking.

Called back apprentices who went for atraining for 6 months. Non unionized workers who were willing

also started working.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

27/29

To make government of India a minority

stake holder, a junior partner.

Wrested control of top management.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

28/29

Win-win solution

Ceased to insist on signing good conductform.

Workers agreed on incentive scheme based on

composite criteria of productivity.

7/29/2019 MUL & TN

29/29