T.K. RANGARAJAN versus GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 251 · Decided: 06-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-I 
T.K. RANGARAJAN 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. 
AUGUST 6, 2003 
[M.B. SHAH AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu. Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002; Rule 22 and 
Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.3 of 2003: 
A 
B 
State Government terminating services of employees resorted to strike C 
for their demands-Challenge to-Power of the High Court-Held: High Court 
was empowered to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to meet unpr;cedented' 
extraordinary situation arose due to termination of services of a large number 
of employees since Administrative Tribunal would not be in a position to 
render justice to the cause of large number of employees-No Fundamental, D 
Statutory or Equitable/Moral Right to strike exists with the Government 
employees-Besides, it is against the interest of the society-They could resort 
to available settlement machinery for redressa/ of their grievances-However, 
State Government directed to reinstate all striking employees except those 
arrested or against whom FIR was lodged, on tendering an unconditional 
apology and an undertaking to abide by Rule 22 in future'-Representations E 
of the employees not reinstated in service would be considered and disposed 
of by three retired Judges of the High Court, nominated by the Chief Justice 
of the High Court-Their decision would be binding on the State Government-' 
If employees are aggrieved, they could move Administrative Tribunal for 
redressal of their grievances-Constitutional validity of the Act and Ordinance · F 
not considered-Hence no directions/orders thereon. 
Tamil Nadu Government terminated the services of large number 
of its employees who had resorted to strike for their demands. Aggrieved, 
employees filed writ petitions. Single Judge of the High Court directed' 
the State Government that pending enquiry in the matter, these employees G 
be directed to resume duty and that order of their suspension/dismissal , 
be kept in abeyance. Aggrieved, State filed appeals and employees 
challenged the validity of the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance 
Act and also the Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 3 of 2003. Division Bench of 
the High Court held that without exhausting the alternative remedy before 
251 
H 
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A the Administrative Tribunal, writ petitions were not maintainable. 
However, it directed to release the arrested employees. Hence the present 
appeals and writ petitions. 
It was contended for the respondent-State that about 90-% of the 
total income of the State from direct tax is being spent on the salary of 
B the employees and in view of large scale unemployment and availability 
of number of qualified persons for employment in Government/PSUs, act 
of employees resorting to strike could not be justified on equitable ground. 
Disposing of the appeals/writ petitions, the Court 
C 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, 
is empowered to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction to meet 
unprecedented extra-ordinary situation having no parallel. It is equally 
true that extra-ordinary powers are required to be sparingly used. The 
facts of the present case reveal that this was °'ost extra-ordinary case, 
D which called for interference by the High Court when the State 
Government had dismissed about two lacs employees for going on strike. 
In a case like this, if thousands of employees were directed to approach 
the Administrative Tribunal, the Tribunal would not be in a position to 
render justice to the cause. Hence, in view of very very exceptional 
circumstance that arose in the present case, there was no justifiable reason 
E for the High Court not to entertain the petitions on the ground of 
alternative remedy provided under the statute. [256-D, E; 260-A, BJ 
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kera/a, [1973) 4 SCC 225, 
distinguished. 
F 
1.2. No Fundamental, Statutory or Equitable/Moral Right to strike 
exists with the Government employees. Law on the subject of strike is well 
settled and it has been repeatedly held by this Court that the employees 
have no fundamental right to resort to strike. (260-B, C) 
Kameshwar Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr., (1962) Suppl. 
G 3 SCR 369; Radhey Shyam Sharma v. The Post Master General, Central 
Circle, Nagpur, [1964] 7 SCR 403; Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India 
and Anr., [2003] 2 SCC 45 and Communist Party of India (M} v. Bharat 
Kumar and Ors., (1998) l SCC 201, relied on. 
H 
1.3. Th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.