Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

S.C. should clarify

Sir, — The Attorney-General, Soli Sorabjee , has reacted sharply to the Supreme Court's ruling on the right to strike. As there is a likelihood that the State Governments might misuse the verdict, it would be appropriate for the Court to clarify the mist of misinterpretation.

V. N. Gopal,
Chennai

Sir, — The verdict strikes at the heart of the working class movement. Strike is the only countervailing power against deprivation of the workers' hard-won rights. The ruling runs counter to the Supreme Court judgment in B.R. Singh's case (reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court Page 1), where the law has been put in the correct perspective: "The right to demonstrate and the right to strike is an important weapon in the armoury of the workers. This right has been recognised by almost all democratic countries. Though not raised to the high pedestal of a fundamental right, it is recognised as a mode of redress for resolving the grievances of the workers." The verdict needs to be reconsidered by a larger Bench.

N.G.R. Prasad,
Chennai

Sir, — Verdict against strike by Government employees and workers is not new; it is the fourth in the series starting from 1962. Paradoxically, the country has witnessed more strikes during bans. The Central Government employees' strike of 1968 and 1974 are memorable. The latest verdict has added a new dimension by imposing a blanket ban on strikes. It also negates the ILO conventions which acknowledge the social compulsions and realities behind strikes.

N. S. Pillai,
Thiruvanathapuram

Sir, — The Government employees of erstwhile Madras, from Kanyakumari to Ganjam district, went on strike when C. Rajagopalachari was Chief Minister. That was the first strike by Government employees in India. The leader, Jagadish Iyer, was dismissed, and local leaders were transferred to distant places. The strike was put down with an iron hand. But the spirit of employees for collective bargaining did not die. One still remembers Prakasam Panthulu who ordered that the treasuries be kept open during nights to disburse the salaries of employees who returned to duty after strike.

V. Subrahmanya Sastry,
Bangalore

Sir, — When there are appropriate forums to deal with employees' grievances, a strike not only undermines their importance and value but also poses a threat to the Government's functioning and paralyses public life. Freedom of speech and action guaranteed under our Constitution is not absolute.

N. Sundararajan,
Vijayawada, A.P.

Sir, — Mr. Sorabjee's observation that employers may exploit the employees is ambiguous. The verdict refers only to Government employees who are not exploited as they have fixed hours of work and salary. And strikes are more relevant in the unskilled labour sector.

T.V.L.N. Narasimhan,
Chennai

Sir, — The contention that strike is sacrosanct and in consonance with the letter and spirit of the Constitution is one-sided. Strikes by industry and Government employees cause serious damage to the economy.

K. Krishna Rao,
Hyderabad

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• AIDS and the public health challenge
• Untangling the crossed wires
• Correction
• Crossing the Bhacchi bridge
• S.C. should clarify
• Being realistic
• Accountable or stable?
• Need for vision
• Mathematics revisited
• Be Indian...

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu