"Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains."-Karl
Let us first begin with basic definitions
According to the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Section 2(q) of said Act defines
the term strike, it says, "strike" means a cassation of work by a body of
persons employed in any industry acting in combination, or a concerted refusal,
or a refusal, under a common understanding of any number of persons who are or
have been so employed to continue to work or accept employment.
Typically, a strike is a response to employee complaints. During the Industrial
Revolution, when mass labour became crucial in factories and mines, strikes
increased in frequency. As strike activity increased, governments were
frequently pressured to take action (either by private business or by union
workers). Government action is rarely impartial or cooperative.
Early strikes were frequently labelled as illegal conspiracies or
anti-competitive cartel activity, and many of them were the targets of harsh
legal repression by state police, federal military force, and federal courts. In
the late 19th and early 20th century, several Western countries made striking
acceptable under specific circumstances.
Sometimes governments are compelled to modify their policies by means of
strikes. Sometimes, strikes undermine a specific political party's or ruler's
authority; in these situations, strikes are frequently a component of a larger
social movement taking the shape of a campaign of civil resistance.
Strikes can occur for a variety of reasons, although they typically do so in
reaction to poor economic conditions (this is what is meant by an economic
strike, which aims to raise pay and benefits) or unfair labour laws (intended to
improve work conditions). Other strikes may be the result of solidarity with
other striking unions or disagreements over jurisdiction between two unions.
Sit-down strikes, wildcat strikes, and partial strikes are all considered
illegal strikes (such as slowdowns or sick-ins). Additionally, strikes may be
called for solely political motives (as in the general strike).
Strikes are among the most widely used, commonly discussed, well-known and
well-documented phenomenon in the professional/industrial world. They are
attracting increasing and widespread interest due to their political, social and
economic implications. Both concepts have boomed in popularity ever since the
advent of the Industrial revolution, and have subsequently left their mark on
history, be it communist revolutions or evolutions in labour law.
With a rise in general awareness of rights and laws, we can see that within the
next few years, both concepts destined to become an important component in the
working world. However, few researchers have addressed the problem of
comparative historical analysis of strikes law in India and other countries.
This is bad in my opinion, as in order to draft progressive labor laws, one
needs to look back into history and see the evolution of the law.
As was said by the famous English writer and philosopher Aldous Huxley "That men
do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all
the lessons of history." This paper presents a new approach to the study of both
the concepts in which they are presented, described, analyzed, investigated and
discussed with special regards to France in order fulfill the aim of our work,
which is to further broaden current knowledge of strikes law.
Before I begin the crux of my paper, I would like to point out that this is a
history dense paper. And since there is a word limit, I will try to condense the
information as much as possible.
Evolution of strikes law in France
Here is a brief summary of the background of Industry in in France 4:
- Since its Revolution in the late 18th century, France's economic history
has been shaped by three significant periods and trends: the Napoleonic Era,
the rivalry with Britain and its other neighbours for "industrialization,"
and the "total wars" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
- In 1815, the majority of France's economy consisted of small-scale
farming and handicrafts. There was minimal industry in Paris and the other,
much smaller metropolitan areas. The GDP per capita of France was lower at
the start of the nineteenth century than that of Great Britain and the
Netherlands. This was most likely a result of increasing transaction costs,
which were primarily brought on by ineffective property rights and a
transportation infrastructure that was more focused on meeting military
requirements than economic development.
- Small and medium-sized businesses dominated the industry, continuing to
produce using conventional methods because transportation limitations
shielded their regional markets from competition from outside. Modern types
of focused production were unique and coexisted with the ordinary
pre-industrial organisations. Only 1.5 million individuals were working in
companies with more than 10 employees in 1851, compared to 3 million who
worked in smaller businesses. Poor transportation infrastructure, limited
agricultural production development, low demand from the agrarian
population, and a shortage of raw materials and energy sources were some of
the factors limiting the establishment of heavy industry.
- Since the sluggish pace seems to be an oversimplification for France as
a whole, historians are hesitant to refer to France's period as the
"Industrial Revolution." When the Napoleonic Wars came to an end, the
Industrial Revolution was already well under way in Britain. It quickly
spread to Belgium and, to a lesser extent, northeastern France. The rest
didn't alter all that much. The industrial development in the growing
regions included some mining and a textile-heavy sector. The rate of
industrialization lagged substantially behind that of Japan, the United
States, Germany, and Britain. After 1685, the persecution of the Protestant
Huguenots resulted in a widespread exodus of technical and entrepreneurial
talent that was difficult to replace. Instead, closely owned family
businesses that placed a strong emphasis on traditionalism and paternalism
were what made French economic practises unique.
- As a result, Paris became a global hub for luxury workmanship and a
robust banking system, but it also hindered the development of massive
factories and multinational enterprises. Napoleon encouraged the study of
engineering, and it paid dividends when well-trained graduates were
available to build the transportation infrastructure, particularly the
railways after 1840.
- Only from 1852 to 1857, when modern industry overtook smaller, artisanal
output, did economic growth in the 19th century increase at the same rate as
other industrialising countries. The development of mechanisation and
financial systems was assisted by the railway, which also made it easier to
move raw materials and completed goods. Previously separated marketplaces
were thus brought together. The railways removed the constraints on the
expansion of industries like coal and metallurgy by lowering transportation
- A significant stimulant for metallurgy, coal, and engineering was also
supplied by railway building, which "stimulated the further concentration of
output through which capitalism became industrial rather than commercial."
Small businesses that had previously dominated local markets with their
things produced using artisanal, small-scale techniques suddenly faced
competition from mass-produced, less expensive, and frequently superior
quality goods arriving from factories.
The Le Chapelier Law 1791 was passed during the French Revolution and declared
"free enterprise," outlawing unions, guilds, and strikes in particular. The loi
Ollivier, which lifted the ban on strikes, was passed on May 25, 1864.
The Matignon Accords and the Popular Front both passed laws requiring 12 days (2
weeks) of paid vacation per year for employees between 1936 and 1938. (1936).
This established the ability to form a union, to engage in collective
bargaining, and the legal right to strike. Acts that restricted the workweek to
40 hours, excluding overtime, and guaranteed paid vacations were thereafter
France has a long and proud history of strikes and revolt, such that I would
consider it their national sport. We can see that here 3:
The position of strikes in France is as such:
- 1229: University of Paris strike of 1229, riots at the University of
Paris that resulted in a number of student deaths and reforms of the
- 1539-1542: Strikes over printers' wages in Lyon and Pari
- 1869: Violent strikes in St Etienne and Aubin
- 1880: Violent strikes
- 1891-1894: Violent strikes and anarchist terrorism
- 1900-1901: Violent strikes in Belfort and Marseille
- 1906-1907: Violent strikes
- 1908: Strikes in Nantes
- 1919-1920: Violent strikes
- 1936: General strike by one million workers
- 1947: 1947 strikes in France, a series of insurrectional strikes
- 1968: May 1968 events in France, a volatile period of civil unrest that
was punctuated by demonstrations and massive general strikes as well as the
occupation of universities and factories across France.
- 2016: 2016 French taxi driver strike, a strike by taxi drivers in
several major cities against Uber, included many road blockades, fires,
overturned vehicles, and the blockade of roads leading to the two major
airports in Paris.
In France, the right to strike is a fundamental right1, which means that the
Constitution declares and upholds it.
"The right to strike shall be exercised in conformity with the legislation that
governs that right.6"-[France, Constitution of the French Republic, 27 October
1946, Preamble, Paragraph 7]
It is a personal freedom that must be practised in a group setting. To put it
another way, it takes a group of workers to decide to stop working in order to
meet more work-related obligations. Only in the context of a nationwide strike
may a single employee go on strike.
This commitment and assurance have two distinct results. On the one hand, the
right to strike can only be regulated by law. Except in cases where legislation
specifically assigns collective bargaining a meaningful obligation, the right to
strike is not a subject (issue) that can be discussed during collective
However, this obligation can only be confined. On the other hand, it is the duty
of the Constitutional Court to make sure that the right to strike is respected
by both the law and the body of precedent when it conducts its checks on the
legality of legislation. Legislation can only restrict the exercise of the right
to strike in the name of standards of equal constitutional validity.
So, what is considered a 'strike" in France 5?
The definition of a "strike" was left up to case law due to the absence of a
definition in the French Labor Code. Therefore, a strike:
- Is a right of an individual being collectively exercised? No, unless the
striker is the sole person employed or is taking part in a national strike.
The strike may, however, be restricted to a location/workshop, a
professional category, and need not be supported by all employees of the
- Results from a consensus among the employees to file a claim; it may be
spontaneous, but it must represent that choice;
- Involves a widespread, complete interruption of the productive work,
which is distinct from;
- voluntarily slowing down work or output, sometimes known as a "go-slow"
strike (grève perlée), or doing work poorly;
An interruption of work that exclusively affects one employee's duties (such
as the cessation of the on-call duty);
- Relates to professional claims, as long as those claims are legitimate
and lawful (e.g., working conditions, health and safety issues, rights of
union representatives, etc.). A claim that is satisfied by breaching the law
or a claim that is made in order to receive a top-up benefit will not be
taken into account as a valid strike claim.
The French Labour Code's protection for strikers and non-strikers will take
effect if the aforementioned requirements are satisfied.
So that is the position with regards to the strikers themselves?
Any worker in a private company has the right to take part in a strike. In
France, the right to strike is a basic one that cannot be restricted by
In the private sector, workers are only required to alert their employers after
the strike really starts (i.e. no notice period applies, except in companies in
charge of public services).
The employment contracts of the strikers are suspended but unaffected throughout
the action. Strikers are nonetheless bound by the terms of their work contracts
(e.g. loyalty, confidentiality).
Employers are not required to pay employees' salary unless:
- The goal of the strike is to ensure that the employer upholds a
fundamental right (such as payment of wages and/or overtime, application of
the applicable collective bargaining agreement, etc.);
- A minimal amount of work is completed;
- Or, unless a conflict resolution agreement between the employer and the
trade unions specifies otherwise, the employer upholds the terms of that
Employees who participate in a strike are protected, especially against
discipline or termination. If the workers participated in the strike
legitimately, neither their dismissal nor disciplinary action may be used as
Such actions would be deemed invalid. An employee who is fired due to a strike
is entitled to a reinstatement to his or her prior positions and the
compensation owed between the time of the dismissal and the time of the
reinstatement, or (ii) if the employee does not want or is unable to be
reinstated (which is very strictly assessed), damages of at least six months'
Strikers who engage in deliberate wrongdoing, which is severely judged by case
law, would be the lone exemption.
It would particularly affect the following circumstances:
- Preventing A Different Employee From Entering The Workplace And, In
Particular, Blocking Entry Points For The Corporation;
- Unlawful Use Of The Business's Property;
- Displaying Violence, Profanity, Or Threats Toward Others, Especially The
The jobs of strikers are also safeguarded; they cannot be replaced by temporary
workers or employees with fixed-term contracts; the only alternatives would be
to turn to service providers or divide the tasks assigned to the strikers among
The strikers will be returned in their prior roles when the strike is over, with
no effect on their careers or pay. However, if all absences are handled equally,
the strike-related absences might be taken into account to lower a bonus or
premium (except for the absences legally considered as effective working time).
Here is a case law:
Case No. 2841 (France) - Date of the Complaint: February 17, 2011 - Organization
of General Labor (CGT)2
During a strike in October 2010, the complaining group claims that employees in
the oil industry were requisitioned on prefectural directives.
The complaining organisation notes that a notable nationwide demonstration
against pension reform took place in France in October 2010. Workers from all
industries exercised their right to strike, and extraordinary huge rallies were
planned with a significant amount of public support (more than a million people
came to the streets).
The complainant organisation claims that the government's actions were
irresponsible in this situation on a number of counts, including its outright
refusal to engage in negotiations with the trade union organisations, its
attempts to weaken the industrial action, and its abuse of its authority to
requisition striking workers. The CGT claims that many prefectural
administrations executed several requisitions.
One of the industries most heavily impacted by the strike was the oil industry.
In order to avoid any convictions, they issued back-to-work orders for a number
of days before rescinding them just before the legal authorities decided whether
or not they were legitimate. The complaint believed that the requisitions had
two goals: to quell the nationwide demonstrations and to sustain economic
activity by reducing the effects of the strikes. Thus, there was a blatant
infringement of the right to strike for workers of several oil corporations.
Requisitioning is a particularly efficient way to prevent workers from
exercising their right to strike because if they refuse to go back to work after
being requisitioned, they will be charged with a crime and face up to six months
in prison and a €10,000 fine. In reality, the plaintiff claims that 160
employees were requisitioned in October 2010 and informed by the prefect of the
criminal penalties they would face if they failed to go to work.
The Committee asks the Government to make sure that, going forward, the workers'
and employers' organisations concerned are involved in the decision-making
process and that measures are not implemented unilaterally in cases where a
non-essential service is paralysed but there is justification for taking
measures to ensure a minimum operational service.
Evolution of strikes law in India
The Indian freedom struggle7 and the passive resistance movements that preceded
independence are directly related to Indian labour legislation. While India was
a British Raj colony. Worker rights, trade unions, and freedom of association
were all governed by the:
- Indian Slavery Act, 1843
- Societies Registration Act, 1860
- Co-operative Societies Act, 1912
- Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926
- The Trades Disputes Act, 1929
Workers who demanded better working conditions and trade unions that protested
by going on strike were regularly and forcefully put down. Following the
achievement of independence in 1947, a number of fundamental labour
rights—including the ability to join and participate in unions, the idea of
workplace equality, and the desire to establish a living wage and respectable
working conditions—were incorporated into the Indian Constitution of 1950.
Everyone in India has the legal right "to create organisations or unions"
according to Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution.
In India, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957's Section 22(1)(a) guarantees the
right to strike as a legislative right.
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 replaces the Trade Unions Act 1926, which
was updated in 2001 to include provisions on governance and general rights of
trade unions. We can observe that historically, trade unions in India have
negatively impacted the country's industrial peace (obvious).
The Industrial Issues Act of 1947 governs how businesses may handle labour
disputes such lockouts, layoffs, and retrenchments, among other things. It
regulates the legal procedures for settlement and the resolution of labour
A right to strike is implied by the Industrial Disputes Act's 1947 structure.
The courts have given the phrase "industry" a broad definition that encompasses
hospitals, schools, clubs, and government agencies. The right to strike is
recognised in Sections 22, 23, and 24. Section 24 distinguishes between a legal
strike and an illegal strike. Section 2 (q) of the Act defines strike as "a
cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in
combination or a concerted refusal, or a refusal, under; a common understanding
of any number of persons who are or have been so employed to continue to work or
to accept employment."
According to Sections 22 and 23, unlawful strikes are those that go outside the
established strike-calling process. Thus, the clause suggests that all strikes
are lawful and legitimate as long as they follow the established method.
Therefore, there is no question that the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 takes a
strike into consideration. Thus, the statutory regulations distinguish between
lawful and illegal strikes. The judiciary will determine if it is legal or not.
The workers right to strike is complemented by the employers right to lock-out,
thus maintaining a balance of powers between the two. Besides the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, the Trade Unions Act, 1926 also recognizes the right to
strike. Sections 18 and 19 of the Act confer immunity upon trade unions on
strike from civil liability.
The Industrial Relations Code of 2020 unified and revised the legislation
governing trade unions, work conditions in industrial establishments or
undertakings, and the investigation and resolution of labour disputes. Three
Central Labor Laws are streamlined and combined under the statute.
Within nine years of its founding, in March 18628, Indian industrial workers
engaged in their first-ever strike campaign. Howrah Station's 1200 railway
workers went on strike in protest for an eight-hour workday. In 1877, workers at
Nagpur Empress Mill went on strike in protest of low pay. There were 25
significant strike battles in the Madras and Mumbai Presidency between 1882 and
1890. Jute workers in Ghusuri, Bengal, went on strike twice in 1881 in protest
over pay erosion. Jute workers in Budge Budge (a town close to Kolkata) went on
strike for 6 days in 1885, and for 8 days in 1889. The protesting employees were
shot at by the cops.
The newly formed class of industrial workers spontaneously responded to
excessive exploitation with a number of conflicts as colonial industrialization
progressed. These outbursts, which were mostly aimed at an excessive workload,
poor pay, and a lack of minimal security, started to catch the eye of humanist
thinkers. In other words, the developing working class movement established
itself as a distinct entity inside the reformist movement.
While workers had not
yet been properly organised into trade unions, humanist and charitable thinkers
like Sashipada Banerjee of Bengal and N M Lekhande of Mumbai began some reform
work among industrial workers. Indian Workers was a news publication for workers
founded in 1874 by Sashipada Banerjee. Dinabandhu was a journal produced in
Mumbai in 1898 by Lekhande.
On the outskirts of Kolkata, Mr. Banerjee also founded the Baranagar Institute
to provide labourers with an elementary education. In 1884, the Brahmo Samaj
spearheaded the establishment of night schools and a savings bank for jute
workers in Baranagar, which was run by Sashipada Banerjee. P C Majumder, another
Brahmo Samaj propagandist, founded 8 night schools in Mumbai to provide
labourers with a foundational education.
In 1884, Lekhande organised 5,500 employees in Mumbai to sign a 5-point charter
of demands for better working conditions, including a Sunday holiday, a
half-hour lunch break, and payment of wages by the 15th of each month. This
charter was then presented to a government committee.
In colonial India, the first factory legislation was passed in 1881. It forbade
the employment of children less than 7 years old and granted kids between 7 and
12 years old four holidays. The age restriction for child labour was raised to
nine years old by the Factory Act of 1891, substantially enhancing worker
rights. Additionally, it stipulated a 7-hour workday for children under the age
of 14, a 1-1/2-hour break for female employees, and a 30-minute break for male
employees. Sundays were also designated as holidays.
The minimal rights of employees as outlined in the Factory Acts, however, were
never implemented by either British or Indian capitalists. Workers rarely knew
where to draw the line between Indian capitalists and British colonial
authorities. Their confrontations with Indian capitalists and British colonial
control, which were integrally intertwined, led to the development of their
Apart from that, There have been a long history of Industrial strikes in India
With regards to strikes, there have been multiple conflicting precedents 10:
- 1921 Buckingham and Carnatic Mills Strike
- 1926 Binny Mill Strike
- 1928 South Indian Railway Strike
- Meerut Conspiracy Case (1929)
- 1974 railway strike in India
- Great Bombay Textile Strike in 1982
- Harthal in Kerala 2012
- Indian general strike of 2016
What We Can Learn
- In B.R. Singh v. Union of India (v), Justice Ahmadi opined that:
"The Trade Unions with sufficient membership strength are able to bargain
more effectively with the management than individual workmen. The bargaining
strength would be considerably reduced if it is not permitted to demonstrate
by adopting agitational methods such as 'work to rule', 'go-slow',
'absenteeism', 'sit-down strike', and 'strike'. This has been recognized by
almost all democratic countries".
- Justice Bhagwati stated in Gujarat Steel Tubes v. Its Mazdoor Sabha
The freedom to strike is essential to collective bargaining. He said that
this right is a procedure that is backed by social justice and acknowledged
by industrial law. Rangarajan's division bench ruling cannot be overturned
since Gujarat Steel Tubes was decided by a three-judge panel. The court in
the Rangarajan case lacked the ability to entirely nullify the legal right
created by judicial law.
- There is no explicit mention of strikes in the Indian Constitution. The
Supreme Court ruled that strike is not a fundamental right in Kameshwar
Prasad v. The State of Bihar 1958, settling the matter. Employees of the
government do not have the legal or moral right to strike.
- The Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966, and the Rules as
amended by Amendment Rules, 1970, came into effect, restricting the ability
of members of the non-gazetted police force to create associations. In Delhi
Police v. Union of India (1986), the Supreme Court maintained these
- The Supreme Court ruled in K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu
(2003) that employees do not have a fundamental right to go on strike.
- The Supreme Court ruled in All India Bank Employees Association v.
National Industrial Tribunal (1962) that the Constitution's Article 19(1)(c)
cannot be interpreted to include the right to strike.
Taking into account the histories of both of the nations, one being the
harbinger of modern western democracy, and the other being the world's largest
democracy, we can notice certain similarities. Despite being from different
nations, under the foot of massive capitalists, the suffering was felt equally
by workers from both nations.
We can see that in both cases, typically, a strike is a response to employee
complaints. When mass labour became crucial in factories and mines during the
industrial revolution, the era of which coincided between the two nations,
strikes became significant. However, since factory owners had far more political
clout than employees, they were rapidly deemed illegal in the majority of
nations. Subsequently, In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, striking
became largely lawful in the majority of western nations.
Trade unions and other labour organisations utilise strikes as a very effective
tool to have their demands met. In most cases, it entails a group of employees
abandoning their jobs in order to put pressure on their employer to accede to
their demands. Workers are considered to go on strike when they collectively
stop working in a certain industry.
When it comes to this domain, we can't only consider the French to be
trailblazers. Indians too were very active, creating many native protest
techniques such as gherao. In Hindi, gherao means to encircle. It refers to a
collective action started by a group of employees in which workers block the
departure gates by building human barricades, preventing members of the
management from leaving the grounds of the industrial plant. By barring the
management's exits and ordering them to remain inside their cabins, the
employees could gherao them. The primary goal of gherao is to torment the victim
physically and mentally, hence this tool significantly affects the industrial
For many employees and labour groups, the option of going on strike has long
been a bargaining weapon. Employees have gone on strike for better pay, more
reasonable work hours, better contracts and benefits, and better working
conditions throughout both the nation's histories.
However, we can see that despite both countries being democracies, the French
laws and legal precedents are far more progressive than Indian laws
An extremely crucial aspect that I would like to point out is the difference of
stances with regards to the right to strike in both the countries. It is a night
and day difference, reflecting the different histories of the nations, one being
a country famous for its revolution loving populace, and the other being a
former colony of the British empire, hell bent on suppressing revolts.
In France, the right to strike is a basic fundamental right, which means that
the Constitution proclaims and guarantees it. In India, however, Article 19 of
the Indian Constitution declares the right to protest to be a basic freedom.
However, the right to strike is a legal one, not a fundamental one, and the
Industrial Dispute Act of 1947 attaches statutory limitations to this right12.
Every right, in my opinion, is accompanied with obligations. The most strong
rights have a greater number of obligations. Today, all nations, whether
democratic, capitalist, fascist or communist, grant employees the freedom to
strike. This is a widespread commercial and judicial phenomenon. But if this
privilege is abused, it will affect the industry's ability to produce and make
money, thus it must only be utilised as a last choice. The nation's economy
would ultimately be impacted by this.
Regardless of this opinion, what I've learned from researching is this: Strike
is an important weapon in the hands of the labourer used to strengthen his
bargaining power. Logically speaking, labourers who do grueling hard work with
low pay could never hope to compete with big capitalists, many of whom are in
cahoots with the executive or law enforcement.
Also, we see that one of the most significant international labour rules is the
freedom to strike. Several international legal instruments of the UN, ILO, and
EU, which stipulate that the right to strike has universal character, control
and manage this right on a global scale. The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural
Rights are the two key UN treaties that govern the right to strike (1966).
Thus, what we can learn, looking at both international and French law is that
the right to strike should be of a fundamental rather than a statutory
character. Over 12.8 million people in India worked in factories during the 2019
fiscal year, and from that, it is guaranteed that a majority of them live wage
to wage. Thus, it is the need of the hour to make the right to strike much more
powerful, to make it explicitly guaranteed by the constitution, instead of
relying on multiple contradictory judicial precedents based on Article 19 (1)(c)
to decide the basic rights of underprivileged workers.
The Indian Constitution states in Article 51(c) that the state must uphold
international law and treaties, and it states in Article 253 that the Indian
Parliament must ratify such international laws and treaties. The right to strike
has been incorporated into every international law and agreement, including the
International Labor Organization and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. Even though the core of collective bargaining is what all international
accords pertaining to workers discuss, India has given little attention to these
conventions. Even the Indian legal system has disregarded the continuous
evolution of the right to strike.
The right to strike must be granted as a basic right immediately. Because if the
right to strike is not recognised as a basic right, the freedom to organise
groups and trade unions will be useless. Such rights will evaporate and be
worthless. In today's economic processes world, the right to strike is crucial.
It is the most powerful tool available to employees for pressing their demands
on the employer.
Making the right to strike a fundamental right will, in my opinion, enhance not
only the nation's economic structure but also the financial security of its
workforce, as well as their access to fair salaries, hygienic conditions, and
other benefits. The ability to strike should be an inherent right granted to
employees in the modern, civilised society.
If the right to strike is not recognised as a basic right, it will still damage
the economic system, disproving the claim that a strike can result in economic
laws due to the sectors' dysfunction. Trade union and organisation membership
will decline, causing economic losses for industry and ultimately the whole
In summary, my work has led me to the conclusion that the right to strike should
be of a fundamental rather than of a statutory nature. This paper has
highlighted underlined the importance of the right to strike by taking into
account historical developments and the modern international law perspective.
My paper provides a springboard and an encouragement for our politicians to
finally take some action and secure the basic labour rights for the workers of
our country, in line with international norms. It is only then that we as a
country will progress towards a better, more stable future.