Observing that it was not empowered to declare the strike by TSRTC workers as illegal, the Telangana High Court on Monday said that it was the Labour Court that had to decide upon the legalities of the strike as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The court also does not have the jurisdiction to instruct the State government or corporation management to hold negotiations with the striking workers.
Observations
Making these observations, a division bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice A. Abhishek Reddy disposed of all the PIL pleas praying that the strike be declared illegal or for instructions to government to hold talks with workers.
Now, there are only three more pleas pending before the bench relating to the strike of TSRTC employees. The petition challenging the government action of hiring over 1,000 private buses was posted after a week. Two other PIL pleas filed by professor P.L. Visheshwar Rao, one challenging the State Cabinet decision on privatising 5,100 permits of TSRTC, and the other on suicides of TSRTC workers, would be heard on Tuesday afternoon.
Presenting his arguments, Additional Advocate General J. Ramchander Rao said the Industrial Disputes Act did not contemplate a situation where an employer has to wait for an authority to declare a strike as illegal. Section 22 of the ID Act has mandatory provisions like the onus on workers to issue strike notice six weeks in advance. If provisions of this section are breached, Section 24 of the same Act declares such strikes as illegal.
He cited a judgement of the Full Bench of Supreme Court substantiating his contentions. “In that verdict, the apex court did not say mere violation of Section 22 can be the basis to declare a strike illegal,” the CJ explained. In fact, the Supreme Court held that it was not appropriate for the HC to declare a strike illegal in that case.
“We don’t want to make a mistake made by that HC in that case relating to Syndicate Bank,” the Chief Justice observed. The Supreme Court had clarified that Labour Commissioner should refer the dispute to Labour Court (under the ID Act) to decide legality of the strike.
“The Labour Commissioner did not refer it because the matter was sub-judice,” the AAG said.
“No, it was no more sub-judice,” the Chief Justice clarified.
Appeal to HC
At this stage, the counsel for TSRTC workers D. Prakash Reddy appealed to the High Court that it can use its power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution to instruct the government to hold negotiations with the workers. However, the bench declined to pass such direction noting that it would refrain from compelling the government to take a decision on any matter.