After striking for twelve days on the demand for the payment of their arrears, government employees have resumed their duties. This followed the assurance from the chief minister Omar Abdullah that the Government would pay their arrears within three months. Incidentally, the strike was called off a day after the J-K High Court ruled the ongoing employees strike illegal. This in one stroke had divested the employee unions of the justification to prolong their agitation. Deciding on a Public Interest Litigation about the legality of the employee strike, court made it clear that there was no “fundamental, legal or statutory right” for the employees to strike work. Court also denied any  moral justification for the strike and its indefinite extension. What made things difficult for the protesting employees was that the High Court, in clear-cut terms, directed the state government to act sternly against them and use provisions under ESMA to maintain unhindered delivery of public utility services. The judgement is a landmark in the legal history of the state. As the court order itself makes it clear, it was inspired by the 2003 Supreme Court ruling which has declared the strikes unjustified as they do more harm than any justice and hold the society at large to ransom. Such rulings have launched their own intense legal debates, with a section of legal opinion holding these ultra vires of the constitutional safeguards for the right to struggle for one’s rights and which by implication is held to extend to the right to strike. But the High Court’s direction to the employees is to approach the machinery provided under different statutory provisions for redressal of their grievance. The court also expects the Government to consider the employees’ demands provided they join their duties. However, the court refrained from dealing with the legitimacy or otherwise of the employees demands, thereby leaving the road open for the two sides to sort these out.
So, aside from the legal nature of their strike, there can be debate on the merit of the employees’ demands and the tenability of the government response. Both sides have their line of argument. And there is truth and falsehood in both the accounts. For instance, the argument of the higher wage bill cannot be held against employees for the simple reason that it is the state that is the employer rather than the employees. The reasons for the state being the largest employer aren’t only because the state is the only viable and secure source of employment. It is also because the government employment has been a known tool for conflict management in the state.  This is why despite the fact that there was  ban on the recruitment for several years following the financial crunch in 1996, the employee ranks continued to swell - and most of these appointments were made through backdoor. Now, the 4.5 lakh employees is a massive number and their ever-burgeoning wage bill has the potential to cripple the development in the state. This brings us to the real issue at stake. Issue is not about the higher wage bill or the massive number of employees.  It is about the right of an employee to his remuneration and periodic hikes and the arrears. Answer to his demand is not there that is a large number of employees, whom the government through regular or backdoor means has itself employed. But while we say this, Government does not deny its obligations and has come on record about its commitment to pay the dues. What is lacking then is the mutual trust. And with employees calling off the strike on CM’s assurance, one can hope that this trust is repaired and rebuilt. In the final analysis, it is this confidence that would minimize the repetition of the future protest and promote a culture of settling differences within the system itself.

Lastupdate on : Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:30:00 Makkah time
Lastupdate on : Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:00:00 IST