Skip to content

CS Professional · Labour Laws and Practice · Constitution and Labour Laws

A manufacturing company runs a unit that makes rubber goods. A union argues that a worker's job loss from an illegal strike deserves protection because the Supreme Court recognised the right to strike as a Fundamental Right. A company secretary reviews the law as settled by the Supreme Court in T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu and related cases. Which statement is correct?

The right to strike is not a Fundamental Right. The Supreme Court in T.K. Rangarajan held it is only a conditional statutory right under industrial law, and strikes not meeting the prescribed conditions can be declared illegal. Article 19(1)(c) protects forming unions, not striking.

  1. AThe right to strike is an absolute Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(c)
  2. BThe right to strike is not a Fundamental Right; it is a statutory right subject to the conditions and restrictions in industrial lawCorrect
  3. CGovernment employees have an unrestricted right to strike under Article 21
  4. DStrikes cannot be held illegal by any authority

Explanation

In T.K. Rangarajan the Supreme Court held that employees have no fundamental, legal, moral or equitable right to strike. Under industrial law, a strike is a conditional statutory right which becomes illegal if the prescribed conditions are not met. Article 19(1)(c) protects forming unions, not striking, so option A is wrong.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Constitution and Labour Laws shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Constitution and Labour LawsFree diagnostic mock

More Constitution and Labour Laws questions