No right to strike? Kerala High Court says bank officers bound by curbs, can’t paralyse services to common citizens

No fundamental right to strike

• The fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India does not encompass the right to go on strike or declare lockouts, independent of the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act, 1947, the court observed.
• This court cannot ignore the practical realities of the present day, where strikes by employees, workmen, or even officers of any sector of public importance primarily harm the public at large, particularly ordinary citizens.
• Suspension of work through strikes or lockouts, therefore, directly impacts the ordinary citizen.
• Strikes or lockouts as modes of protest are statutorily prohibited because they have the effect of paralysing the functioning of establishments of immense public utility, such as the banking sector, which is at the forefront of the Indian economy.
• Acceptance of the association’s contention would effectively amount to interpreting the judgment of this court as legalising the draconian actions of strikes and lockouts by trade unions, something the Indian Constitution does not envisage.
• There is no basis for the inference that managerial or supervisory employees of higher ranks or cadres are excluded from the provisions of the ID Act.
• A PUS provides services of immense public importance, and permitting strikes or lockouts in such services would have unforeseeable repercussions on the public and the citizenry at large.
• A PUS is an establishment of immense public interest whose activities cannot be halted, suspended, or hindered by resorting to collective bargaining through strikes.
• Strikes and lockouts often have the potential to escalate into violent agitations, resulting in not only loss of public confidence but also damage to public property and assets.
• Any person employed in a PUS must follow a prescribed procedure before resorting to strike action or patiently pursue conciliation proceedings.

Final outcome

• The court set aside the March 28, 2025, judgment of the single judge and upheld the validity of the conciliation proceedings initiated under Section 22 of the ID Act.
• The ruling sends a clear message – once banking is notified as a PUS, officers, even if they are not “workmen” under the ID Act, cannot sidestep statutory strike restrictions.

How dispute began

• The controversy began when the FBOA, representing officers in Scale I to Scale III cadres of the private sector bank headquartered in Kerala’s Aluva, issued a call for strike/abstention from work.
• In response, the regional labour commissioner (central) invoked Section 22 of the ID Act and initiated conciliation proceedings.
• Section 22 of the Act prohibits strikes and lock-outs in public utility services without adhering to strict notice requirements.
• Employees must give six weeks’ notice before striking, cannot strike within 14 days of such notice, and are barred from striking during conciliation proceedings.
• Similar conditions apply to employers declaring a lock-out.

• The notice restrained the association from proceeding with the strike during the pendency of conciliation.
• The officers’ association challenged this before the high court, arguing that its members were not “workmen” under Section 2(s) of the ID Act.
• Since an “industrial dispute” requires a dispute involving workmen, it contended that the conciliation officer lacked jurisdiction altogether.
• A single judge accepted that argument and quashed the proceedings.
• The bank appealed against the single judge’s order.

Banking as public utility service

• At the heart of the appeal was a gazette notification dated June 5, 2023, issued by the Union Ministry of Labour and Employment declaring services in the banking industry as a public utility service or PUS under the Industrial Disputes Act.
• The court noted that this notification had been issued in public interest and could not be treated as an empty formality.
• The judges went beyond dry statutory interpretation and devoted substantial space to the role of banking in the national economy.
• Citing official government data placed on record, the court observed that between 2015 and 2025, domestic deposits rose from Rs 88.35 lakh crore to Rs 231.90 lakh crore.
• It noted that bank credit expanded from Rs 66.91 lakh crore to Rs 181.34 lakh crore.
• Gross Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) fell sharply from 11.46% in 2018 to 2.31% in 2025, the court said.
• Net profits of scheduled commercial banks climbed significantly, the court said.
• These figures, the court noted, reflected a sector that had moved “from crisis to confidence” and now stood at the forefront of India’s economic growth story.
• “The banking sector constitutes a Public Utility Service indispensable to the Indian economy,” the bench observed, stressing that courts must interpret labour law in the light of these realities.

Core legal issue: Who does Section 22 cover?

• The officers’ association built its case around a technical but important point – Section 2(s) of the ID Act defines “workman,” and the FBOA claimed that its members, being officers, fall outside that definition.
• Therefore, no “industrial dispute” could exist, and conciliation under the Act could not be triggered.
• The bench rejected this reasoning as legally flawed.
• It drew a clear distinction between Sections 22 and 23 of the ID Act
• The court said that Section 23 refers specifically to “workmen.”
• Section 22 uses the broader phrase “no person employed in a public utility service”, the court said.
• This difference, the court said, was deliberate.
• “The statutory embargo on strikes and lockouts, therefore applies not only to workmen but also to non-workmen, provided they are employed in a Public Utility Service,” the bench held.
• If Parliament intended to confine the restriction to workmen, it would have said so, the court said.
• The use of the expression “any person employed” widened the scope intentionally.
• The court further clarified that Section 22 operates independently of the machinery for adjudicating industrial disputes.
• Once a service is notified as a PUS, statutory conditions automatically apply before any strike can be undertaken.
• Error in single judge’s view
• The court held that the single judge had taken an unduly narrow view by focusing only on the definition of “workman.”
• “The ambit and scope of Section 22 cannot be controlled by the provisions of Section 12 or Section 23 of the ID Act, but must be given an independent interpretation,” the court said.
• The judges warned that accepting the association’s argument would effectively legalise strike actions in essential services simply because the employees involved held managerial or supervisory posts.
• The court made clear that it would defeat the very purpose of declaring banking a public utility service.