Opinion - Editorials

A welcome relief

THE SUPREME COURT has played a vital role in easing, and possibly bringing to an end, the highly undesirable situation that has developed on the ground in Tamil Nadu. This situation reflected the standoff between the State Government and about 200,000 of its employees who had been dismissed for their participation in a strike. The court played its constructive, and indeed breakthrough, role by wresting an undertaking from the Government that it would reinstate, without a break in service, the dismissed employees on their tendering an unconditional apology for participating in an "illegal" strike. The interim order of the apex court will be widely welcomed for ending the agonising uncertainty over the livelihood and future of such a large workforce. The Government has stipulated as another condition for reinstatement the submission of an undertaking by the employees that they would abide by Rule 22 of the Service Conduct Rules (which prohibits participation in strikes).

The Supreme Court's final order in the landmark case relating to the en masse dismissal of State Government employees, including teachers, will be awaited with great interest round the country. The issues involved in this case include the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act (TESMA) as amended by the ordinance promulgated within a couple of days of the launch of an indefinite strike on July 2; the assumption of the summary power of dismissal without application of mind, without even an inquiry; retrospective effect given to the ordinance; and the concept of "deemed participation" in an illegal strike. It is clear that the apex court has taken cognisance of the centrality of the questions raised by the petitioners. It has observed that the Madras High Court clearly erred in not entertaining petitions on the dismissals under Article 226 of the Constitution (writ jurisdiction over matters involving fundamental rights) and in asking nearly 200,000 employees to go to an administrative tribunal made up of one member. A reasonable inference that can be drawn from the Supreme Court's observations on July 24 is that the ordinance promulgated by the State Government is not constitutionally sound; the court observed that the Government should "consult proper lawyers" before converting the ordinance into a statute.

However, the observations made by the apex court's two-judge bench on July 21, to the effect that strikes were always a misused weapon and that employees were holding the State to ransom, have hardly served to clarify issues from the point of view of law and justice. Whether these observations translate into any binding opinion remains to be seen. The immediate practical issue concerns the implementation of the State Government's undertaking. Two unresolved questions arise from the Government's determination not to reinstate 2,200 employees who had been arrested and those against whom FIRs have been registered, and to proceed under the disciplinary rules against those who had "incited" the strike or "indulged in violence." In any employer-employee dispute, questions will be raised about alleged victimisation of the leadership of agitators. But what should receive the utmost consideration of all concerned is that in labour relations, neither law nor tough postures can accomplish what the spirit of `bipartism' and social partnership can, as has been pointed out by any number of committees and conferences over the decades.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu