2017 (10) TMI 1606 - HC - Indian Laws

Constitutional Validity of strike by the employees of the State Transport Corporation - seeking direction to employees of the State Transport Corporation to resume their duties forthwith - whether this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitute of India is empowered to hold the strike of the employees of the Corporation was illegal when admittedly the issue is subjudice before the Court of the competent jurisdiction? - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the Respondent-Union indeed undertakes public utility service which is so evident from the large network it has and the fact that it serves 7 million passengers daily on 13, 700 routes across the State in 16, 500 buses. Therefore besides validity of the Notification issued by the State declaring Corporation renders public utility service the facts of the case clearly discloses that because of the strike by the employees of the Corporation life of people in the rural areas has heavily disturbed and virtually come to stand still. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that private transport operators do not ply their buses on the every route and as such there are no transport facilities available in the interior parts of the State except that of State Corporation. Judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that since last four days the commuters children patients handicapped persons senior citizens are facing immense difficulties and as such transport system in the rural parts of the State has collapsed to the considerable extent. In this case it was suggested to the union of Employees that the high-powered Committee will look into the grievance of the petitioner afresh and would also consider the interim hike in the pay within three weeks from the constitution of the Committee. It was suggested that the high-powered Committee would submit a report within two months - It was suggested to the Union that in the given circumstances it would be in the interest of all stakeholders and parties to participate in the negotiations with the high-powered Committee and arrive at an amicable solution. All these suggestions were not accepted by the Union. The Corporation is state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and thus its employees stand on same footing as of that Government servants. That since the services of the Corporation are in the nature of public utility and since the strike has caused immense inconvenience to the rural population and since the respondent Union is not willing to have a resort to the machinery provided by the State i.e. constitution of high-powered Committee and also by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme court in the case of T.K. Rangarajan 2003 (8) TMI 581 - SUPREME COURT this Court is of the view that the strike by the employees of the State Transport Corporation of Maharashtra is prima-facie illegal - the strike by the employees of the State Transport Corporation is hereby declared illegal. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and constitutionality of the strike by the employees of the State Transport Corporation.
2. Impact of the strike on the public, particularly in rural areas.
3. State's role and responsibilities under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950.
4. Compliance with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. Formation and role of a high-powered committee to resolve the dispute.
6. Interim relief and pay revision for the employees.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Constitutionality of the Strike:
The petitioners sought a declaration that the strike by the employees of the State Transport Corporation was "illegal and unconstitutional" and requested a mandatory relief to direct the employees to resume their duties forthwith. The court examined whether the strike, which commenced at midnight on 16th October 2017, was illegal. The Corporation's counsel argued that the strike was illegal under Section 22(1)(a) and (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the notice given by the Union was only 14 days instead of the required six weeks for public utility services. The court was prima facie satisfied that the strike breached these provisions.

2. Impact of the Strike on the Public:
The petitioners contended that the strike caused immense inconvenience to the residents of Maharashtra, particularly affecting the rural population during the Diwali festival. The lack of alternative transport facilities exacerbated the situation, isolating certain areas. The court acknowledged the significant disruption caused by the strike, noting that the Corporation serves seven million passengers daily on 13,700 routes, making its services indispensable.

3. State's Role and Responsibilities:
The State Government, under Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, has control over the administration and financial affairs of the Corporation. The court highlighted the State's passive attitude in resolving the issue and emphasized its responsibility to intervene effectively. The State's counsel submitted that the government was making efforts to resolve the issue through continuous negotiations and had issued a notification permitting private vehicles to ferry passengers during the strike.

4. Compliance with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The Corporation's counsel pointed out that the strike was in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the Union did not provide the required six-week notice. The Labour Court had already restrained the employees from striking before or after midnight on 16th October 2017. The Union's counsel argued that the notification declaring the Corporation's services as public utility was a mala fide action to upset the strike notice. However, the court found the strike to be prima facie illegal under the Act.

5. Formation and Role of a High-Powered Committee:
During the hearings, it was suggested that a high-powered committee be constituted to resolve the issue. The State agreed to form such a committee, comprising the Finance Secretary, Transport Secretary, Transport Commissioner, and Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of MSRTC, subject to the Union resuming work immediately. The Union, however, insisted that the Chief Minister head the committee and demanded an interim pay hike. The court directed the State to constitute the committee by 23rd October 2017 and submit a report by 22nd December 2017.

6. Interim Relief and Pay Revision:
The Union demanded an interim pay hike of at least Rs. 8,000 per employee. The court suggested that the high-powered committee consider the interim pay revision within three weeks of its constitution. The committee was tasked with submitting its findings on pay revision by 15th November 2017.

Conclusion:
The court declared the strike by the employees of the State Transport Corporation as illegal and directed the employees to resume their duties forthwith. The State was instructed to form a high-powered committee to address the employees' grievances and consider an interim pay revision. The court emphasized the need for the State to take proactive measures to resolve the issue and alleviate the public inconvenience caused by the strike. The proceedings were adjourned to 10th January 2018 for further review.