Tuesday, Jul 22, 2003
Tuesday, Jul 22, 2003 |
| Front Page | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Front Page
By J. Venkatesan
It, however, suggested to the State Government to "show magnanimity and grace" and take back the 1.7 lakh sacked employees on their tendering an unconditional apology for participating in the "illegal strike" and an undertaking that they would abide by the `Conduct Rules' in future. A Bench, comprising Justices M.B. Shah and A.R. Lakshmanan, gave this suggestion to the State's senior counsel, K.K. Venugopal and P.P. Rao, who sought time till Thursday to take instructions and respond to the court's suggestions. The Bench wanted the Government to pass orders immediately on these lines without waiting for the court to pass orders. Mr. Venugopal submitted that the State Government had already reinstated more than 20,000 employees after scrutinising their representations. When counsel said that the employees could wait till their representations were considered and disposed of, the Bench said there was "no question of waiting till the enquiry was over" as that would take time. The Bench said that except against those whom there were specific cases of violence, which needed an enquiry, all the remaining staff could be taken back immediately on compassionate grounds. It referred to the apex court judgment declaring the strike by lawyers as illegal and said the "State has taken appropriate action as there is no alternative today to deal with the strike". The employees did not have any fundamental right to go on strike and such illegal strikes had to be dealt with firmly by the authorities. The State Government's tough stand in this case had sent a message to government servants all over the country that "maladministration can be cured this way". The Bench was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the dismissal of the 1.7 lakh government employees invoking an ordinance to amend the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002. The employees had gone on strike in support of their demands, including restoration of certain cash benefits withdrawn under the pension scheme. When the senior advocate T.R. Andhyarujina, counsel for the DMK MP, C. Kuppuswamy, questioned the constitutional validity of the ordinance, the Bench asked him "under which provision of the Constitution, Government employees have the right to hold a State Government, or any Government for that matter, to ransom". He argued that the ordinance was the most draconian piece of legislation anywhere in the statute book and it violated Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as the pre-decisional enquiry had been dispensed with. The Bench observed that "strike as a weapon is always misused which results in chaos and total maladministration". Further "there is no Constitutional provision under which the government employees can claim as a matter of right to go on strike". Senior counsel, P. Chidambaram, appearing for one of the appellants, conceded the strike was illegal but said when on July 4 the strike was declared illegal by the ordinance, the employees wanted to join duty from July 7 but the Government prevented them from doing so.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
