Introduction
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 is one of the most significant labour reforms introduced in India in recent decades. Enacted as part of the consolidation of 29 labour laws into four labour codes, the law aims to simplify industrial relations, improve ease of doing business, and create a structured mechanism for dispute resolution between employers and workers.
Supporters describe the Code as a modern framework designed to reduce sudden industrial disruptions and encourage negotiation-based settlements. Critics, however, argue that several provisions — particularly those relating to strikes, lockouts, and dispute resolution — disproportionately weaken workers’ bargaining power.
At the center of the debate lies an important constitutional and democratic question:
Can industrial peace be achieved without limiting the practical ability of workers to collectively resist exploitation?
What the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 Changed
The Industrial Relations Code merged and replaced:
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
- Trade Unions Act, 1926
- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
The Code regulates:
- Trade unions
- Industrial disputes
- Strikes and lockouts
- Layoffs and retrenchment
- Industrial tribunals
- Collective bargaining mechanisms
One of the most debated provisions is Section 62, which restricts strikes and lockouts during dispute resolution proceedings.
Restrictions on Strikes During Proceedings
Under Section 62 of the Industrial Relations Code, workers are prohibited from going on strike during:
- Conciliation proceedings and seven days after conclusion
- Tribunal or National Tribunal proceedings and sixty days after conclusion
- Arbitration proceedings and sixty days after conclusion
- The operation period of settlements or awards on covered matters
Similarly, employers are prohibited from declaring lockouts during these periods.
The government’s justification is straightforward: Industrial disputes should be resolved through institutional mechanisms rather than economic disruption.
From a policy perspective, the objective is industrial stability.
However, the practical consequences are far more complex.
The Constitutional Debate: Is the Right to Strike Fundamental?
Indian constitutional law draws a distinction between:
- Freedom of speech and association
- Right to strike
Under Article 19 of the Constitution, citizens have:
- Freedom of speech and expression
- Right to assemble peacefully
- Right to form associations and unions
But Indian courts have consistently held that the right to strike is not an absolute fundamental right.
Important Supreme Court judgments include:
- All India Bank Employees’ Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (1962)
- T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2003)
The judiciary has generally accepted that the State can impose “reasonable restrictions” on strikes in the interest of public order and industrial stability.
Legally, therefore, the Industrial Relations Code regulates industrial action rather than directly banning free expression.
But constitutional legality and practical equality are not always the same thing.
The Core Concern Raised by Labour Unions
Trade unions across India have argued that the Code creates an imbalance between employers and workers.
Why?
Because a strike is not merely symbolic expression. It is often the primary bargaining tool available to labour.
In industrial relations, bargaining power matters.
Employers usually possess:
- Financial resources
- Administrative control
- Legal departments
- Operational continuity
- Influence over employment decisions
Workers, especially contractual or low-income labourers, often possess only one major collective tool: organized industrial action.
When strike action is restricted during long-running dispute resolution proceedings, unions argue that workers lose leverage while employers continue operations uninterrupted.
This creates the fear that: conciliation may become delay, and delay may become pressure.
The “Delay Mechanism” Criticism
One of the strongest criticisms of the present framework is not merely the restriction itself, but the possibility of procedural misuse.
Labour activists argue that:
- Conciliation proceedings may continue for extended periods
- Adjudication can take months or years
- Workers remain legally restrained from striking during this time
- Financial pressure gradually weakens labour resistance
In such situations, workers may face:
- Transfers
- Suspensions
- Harassment
- Wage pressure
- Retaliatory disciplinary actions
Even where legal remedies exist, access to justice may be slow and expensive.
This creates a practical imbalance: the employer can survive delay more easily than labour can.
Employer Concerns and the Case for Stability
The employer and government perspective is equally important to understand.
Businesses argue that:
- Sudden strikes can damage economic activity
- Investors require predictability
- Public services cannot function under constant disruption
- Industrial peace supports national growth
From this viewpoint, mandatory notice periods and restrictions during conciliation encourage negotiation before confrontation.
Supporters of the Code also point out that:
- Employers are equally restricted from lockouts
- Legal mechanisms for dispute resolution continue to exist
- Workers can still protest peacefully, unionize, and litigate
Thus, the Code attempts to move industrial relations away from direct confrontation toward institutional settlement.
The question is whether the institutions are efficient enough to maintain fairness.
The Real Issue: Speed and Fairness of Justice
The true debate may not simply be: “Should strikes be restricted?”
The deeper issue is: “Can dispute resolution remain fair if it is excessively delayed?”
If the State restricts industrial action during proceedings, then dispute resolution mechanisms must also become:
- Fast
- Independent
- Transparent
- Time-bound
- Accessible to workers
Otherwise, restrictions intended for industrial peace may unintentionally weaken industrial democracy.
A legal system gains legitimacy only when both sides trust the process.
International Perspective
Globally, many democracies regulate strikes under certain conditions, especially in:
- Essential services
- Public utilities
- National security sectors
However, international labour standards — including principles associated with the International Labour Organization (ILO) — emphasize that workers must retain meaningful collective bargaining power.
If restrictions become so extensive that workers cannot realistically negotiate, critics argue that labour rights become formal rather than effective.
Conclusion
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 represents a major transformation in India’s labour framework.
Legally, it does not completely eliminate freedom of expression or union activity. Workers still retain constitutional rights to organize, speak, assemble, and seek legal remedies.
But the Code undeniably changes the balance of industrial power by placing tighter procedural controls on strikes during dispute resolution proceedings.
Supporters view this as necessary for economic stability and modern industrial governance.
Critics view it as a structural weakening of labour leverage in a system where employers often possess greater economic strength.
Ultimately, the future success of the Code will depend on one critical factor:
Whether India’s labour dispute resolution system delivers fast, fair, and genuinely independent justice.
Because industrial peace without industrial fairness cannot remain stable for long.
Comments
Post a Comment