Group 7 - Respondent - Moot 2016 Batch

TEAM CODE:
GROUP 7
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPEAL NO: _______/2021
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
STATE OF DHARMANIA (APPELLANT)
VERSUS
CHUKAN (RESPONDENT)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
-DRAWN AND FILED BY COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT-
APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 132 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

MOOT COURT 2016-2021 BATCH
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-------------------------------------------------------------------------3-6
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS----------------------------------------------------------------------6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-----------------------------------------------------------------7
STATEMENT OF FACTS---------------------------------------------------------------------------8-9
STATEMENT OF ISSUES---------------------------------------------------------------------------10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS---------------------------------------------------------------------11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-------------------------------------------------------------------12- 41
1 Whether Dharmania Civil Services Act, 1980 And Notification Dated 25/12/2002 Is Valid
and Constitutional? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------12-19
1.1 The impugned Act is an excessive delegation of power. -------------------------------------12
1.2 The impugned Act and Notification is ultra vires the Constitution--------------------------14
1.3 The Impugned Act violates the constitutional right guaranteed under Art 311(2). -------18
2. Whether Banning Strike in Wholesale Fashion as Has Been Done by Government Violates
Fundamental Rights of Employees? --------------------------------------------------------------20-28
2.1 Impugned provision Violates Article 19(1)(a) -------------------------------------------------20
2.2 Impugned Provision Violates Article 19(1)(c) -------------------------------------------------22
2.3 Not covered under reasonable restriction in Article 19----------------------------------------23
2.4 Impugned provision violates right to life under Article 21------------------------------------25
2.5 Impugned provision violates golden triangle (Article 14,19 & 21) --------------------------26
3. Whether Imprisonment Upto 10 Years and Fine Upto Rs. 5 Lakhs Provided Under
Dharmania Civil Services Act, 1980 Is A Cruel and Unusual Punishment Hit by Protection
Afforded Under Art. 14 And 21? ----------------------------------------------------------------28-33
3.1 Impugned provision violates Art 14. -----------------------------------------------------------28
3.2 The impugned provision contravenes Dharmania Civil Services (Classification, Control &
Appeal) Rules, 1960. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------30
3.3 Impugned provision violates Art 21. ------------------------------------------------------------31
3.4 Proportionality principle and Punishment-------------------------------------------------------32
4. Whether Impugned Act Interferes with The Right of Employees Guaranteed Under
Customary International Law? -------------------------------------------------------------------33-41
4.1 Right to strike guaranteed under international law---------------------------------------------34
4.2 State of Dharmania is bound by international law----------------------------------------------39
PRAYER------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------42
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUES INCORPORATED
1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Dharmania Civil Services Act,1980
3. Dharmania Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960
4. Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981.
5. Indian Penal Code, 1860
6. Trade Unions Act, 1926
7. The Code of Criminal Procedure ,1973
8.Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
❖ INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND STATUTES
9. Universal Declaration of Human Rights,1948

10. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
11. ILO Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
12.International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
BOOKS and COMMENTARIES
1. Yashomati Ghosh, Textbook on Administrative Law, Lexis Nexis,1st ed., Dec 2016
2. M P Jain & S. N Jain, Principles of Administrative Law, Lexis Nexis, 7th ed., 2017
3. Dr. Kailash Rai, Indian Constitutional Law, Central Law Publications ,11th Ed,2015
4. Justice Bhagwati Prosad Banerjee and Bhasker Banerjee, Judicial Control of
Administrative Action, LexisNexis; 2nd ed., Jan 2012
5. Seervai H M. Constitutional Law of India, 4th Edition, Silver jubilee edition Vol 2,
Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
6. Singh M P, V N Shukla’s Constitution of India, Eastern book company, 11th ed.

DICTIONARIES
1. G. Bryan, ‘Black’s Law Dictionary’, 9th Ed., 2009, West Group

2. P. Ramanatha Aiyar, ‘Concise Law Dictionary’,5th Ed.,2014, Lexis Nexis
ARTICLES
1. Bernard Gernigon, Alberto Odero &Horacio Guido, ILO Principles Concerning the
Right to Strike, International Labour Review, Vol. 137 (2000), No. 4
WEBSITES VISITED
1. www.indiankanoon.org
2. www.livelaw.com
3. www.barandbench.com
4. www.manupatra.in
5. www.legalserviceindia.com
6. www.legalcrystal.com
TABLE OF CASES
NO. NAME OF CASE CITATION
1 Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd (1997) 5 SCC 516
2 Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722
3 Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India 1984) 3 SCC 127
4 All India Bank Association v. National Industrial Tribunal, 1962 SCR (3) 269
5 Apparel Export Promotion Council v. AK. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625
6 B.R. Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1
7 Bank of India v. T.S. Kalewala, 1990 SCC (4) 744
8 Bennet and Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106

NO. NAME OF CASE CITATION
9 Bhagat Ram v. State of H. P (1983) 2 SCC 442
10 Binu v. State of Kerala 2002 CriLJ4374

Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (India) Ltd. v. Subhash
11 AIR 1992 SC 573
Chandra Bose
12 Chintaman Rao v. State of MP, 1950 SCR 759
13 Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India AIR 1951 SC41
14 Crompton Greaves Ltd v. Workmen, AIR 1978 SC 1489
15 Dhanji Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1965 Punj 153
16 Dilbagh Rai v. Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway AIR 1959 Punj 401
17 E. P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 555
18 Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi 1981 SCR (2) 516
19 Gujarat Steel Tubes v. Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1980 SC 1896
20 In Re: Delhi Laws Act AIR 1951 SC 332
21 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) P. Ltd v. Union of India, 1985 SCC 641
22 K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of T.N 1996 SCC (2) 226
23 Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1952 SC 252
24 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
27 M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, 1979 SCR (3) 254
28 Management of Kairbeta Estate, Kotagiri v. Rajamanickam, 1960 SCR (3) 371
29 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
30 Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771
31 Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration, 1980 AIR 1535
32 R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority, 1979 SCR (3)1014
33 Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 2386

34 Saurabh Chaudhari v Union Of India, AIR 2004 SC 2212
35 Sharma Transport v. Government of A. P (2002) 2 SCC 188.
36 Syndicate Bank v. Umesh Nayak, AIR 1995 SC 319

Tarini Kumar v. Chief Commercial Superintendent, Eastern
37 AIR 1965 Cal 75
Railway
INDEX OF ABBREVATIONS
AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article
& And
Anr. Another
Ed. Edition
Govt. Government
Ors Others
No. Number
Sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCJ Supreme Court Journal
Vol. Volume
v. Versus
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
International Covenant on Civil and Political
ICCPR
Rights
International Covenant on Economic, Social
ICESCR
and Cultural Rights
ILO International Labour Organisation

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Respondent humbly submits this memorial in response to the appeal filed before this
Hon’ble Court by Appellant against the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Dharmania. The
Appellant invokes jurisdiction of this court under Article 132 of the Constitution of India.
The memorandum, sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.
ALL OF WHICH HUMBLY IS SUBMITTED:
Counsel for the respondent.
Article 132
Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases
( 1 ) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a
High Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if the
High Court certifies under Article 134A that the case involves a substantial question of law
as t the interpretation of this Constitution
(3) Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court
on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided Explanation For
the purposes of this article, the expression final order includes an order declaring an issue
which, if decided in favour of the appellant, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the
case

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Dharmania is one of the States in Indian Union. It is a progressive state on the road to
development with a well laid out high tech infrastructure. The state has advanced very much
in education and health care compared to many other states in Indian Union.
2. Dharmania Civil Services Act, 1980 empowers the State government to declare any service
as essential service by a notification in the official Gazette. The Act also provides that if a
service is declared essential, resorting to strike in that service is a cognizable offence and one
who commits the offence of resorting to strike is liable to be dismissed from service and is
punishable with imprisonment for a term up to ten years and also liable to fine which may
extend to Rs. 5 lakhs.
3. The employees of the State of Dharmania have been claiming for a revision of emoluments
in view of the increased cost of living. However, the Govt. did not concede to the demand on
the ground of financial stringency. Ultimately the negotiations broke down; Union of
employees representing 95% of the total number of employees gave a notice on 20th
December, 2002 of strike with effect from 1st January, 2003.
4. On receiving strike notice the government of Dharmania issued the following

notifications:
Government of Dharmania Department of Home Affairs
Notification No. S.R.O. 2019/2002 dated 25/12/2002
WHEREAS, it has come to the notice of the government of Dharmania that certain misguided
employees are planning to precipitate with effect from 1.01.2003 an unjustifiable strike in
various departments which will jeopardize the developmental momentum gained by the State.
It is hereby declared that with effect from the date of this notification all the services under
the government of Dharmania are essential services as envisaged in the Dharmania Civil
Services Act, 1980 and the penalties and consequences mentioned therein will be attracted in
the case of employees joining the said strike. Sd/-
Bhoo Devi
Secretary to the Government

5. However strike commenced as per notice on 1/1/2003, a very large percentage of

employees took part in it and resorted to activities which prevented the small percentage of
employees from attending office. The Government arrested large number of employees and
strike leaders and prosecuted them. Chukan, the Chairman of one of the unions was convicted
and punished with imprisonment for a term of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 3 lakhs.
6. Mr. Chukan challenged the validity of the Act, the notification issued under the Act and
the conviction on the following grounds:
➢ The provisions in the Act empowers the government to notify any service as essential
service without guidance is an unconstitutional delegation of power.
➢ Banning the strike in the wholesale fashion as has been done by the government is
violation of the government servant’s fundamental rights to freedom of speech and
association guaranteed in the Article 19 (1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution and is not saved by
the provision for reasonable restrictions.
➢ Imprisonment up to 10 years and also liable to fine which may extend to Rs. 5 lakhs is a
cruel and unusual punishment which is hit by protection afforded to life and personal liberty
by Art. 14 & 21 of the Constitution
➢ The norms for the protection of Human Rights declared in UDHR, Art. 22 of the ICCPR
& in the Conventions of ILO do not permit such interference with the rights of employees.
These norms have become part of the customary International Law. The Judiciary is bound to
recognize and give effect to them even if some of them have not been positively adopted in
the legal system of a State.
7. The High Court of Dharmania accepted the above arguments declared the relevant
provisions of the Act and the notification issued there under to be void and quashed the
conviction and acquitted Chukan. Aggrieved by the above order, the State of Dharmania has
filed an appeal against the judgement of the High Court before the Supreme Court of India
stating that all the grounds upheld by the High Court are untenable.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I. WHETHER DHARMANIA CIVIL SERVICES ACT, 1980 AND

NOTIFICATION DATED 25/12/2002 IS VALID AND
CONSTITUTIONAL?
II. WHETHER BANNING STRIKE IN WHOLESALE FASHION AS

HAS BEEN DONE BY GOVERNMENT VIOLATES
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES?
III. WHETHER IMPRISONMENT UPTO 10 YEARS AND FINE UPTO

RS. 5 LAKSHS PROVIDED UNDER DHARMANIA CIVIL
SERVICES ACT, 1980 IS A CRUEL AND UNUSUAL
PUNISHMENT HIT BY PROTECTION AFFORDED UNDER
ART. 14 AND 21?
IV. WHETHER IMPUGNED ACT INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHT

OF EMPLOYEES GUARANTEED UNDER CUSTOMARY
INTERNATION LAW?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. WHETHER DHARMANIA CIVIL SERVICES ACT, 1980 AND
NOTIFICATION DATED 25/12/2002 IS VALID AND CONSTITUTIONAL?
The Dharmania Civil Services Act, 1980 and Notification dated 25/12/2002 is an excessive
delegation of power and violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14,19,21,23 of
the Constitutional. Hence the impugned Act and Notification is ultra vires the constitution
and is therefore void.
II. WHETHER BANNING STRIKE IN WHOLESALE FASHION AS HAS BEEN

DONE BY GOVERNMENT VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF
EMPLOYEES?
Banning the strike in the wholesale fashion as has been done by the government is violation
of the government servant’s fundamental rights to freedom of speech and association
guaranteed in the Article 19 (1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution and is not saved by the
provision for reasonable restrictions. It also violates Arts. 21 and 23 of the constitution.
III. WHETHER IMPRISONMENT UPTO 10 YEARS AND FINE UPTO RS. 5

LAKSHS PROVIDED UNDER DHARMANIA CIVIL SERVICES ACT, 1980 IS
A CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT HIT BY PROTECTION
AFFORDED UNDER ART. 14 AND 21?
Imprisonment up to 10 years and also which may extend to Rs. 5 lakhs is disproportionate
with the misconduct done and therefore constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment which is
hit by protection afforded to life and personal liberty by Art. 14 & 21 of the Constitution
IV. WHETHER IMPUGNED ACT INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHT OF

EMPLOYEES GUARANTEED UNDER CUSTOMARY INTERNATION
LAW?
Impugned Act interferes with the right of employees guaranteed under customary
international law UDHR, Art. 22 of the ICCPR & in the Conventions of ILO. India being a
signatory to above conventions the State of Dharmania is bound follow these principles.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER DHARMANIA CIVIL SERVICES ACT, 1980 AND NOTIFICATION
DATED 25/12/2002 IS VALID AND CONSTITUTIONAL?
The Counsels for Respondent humbly submit before this Hon’ble Court that the Dharmania
Civil Services Act, 1980 and Notification Dated 25/12/2002 issued under it by the State
Government is unconstitutional and not valid on the following grounds:
1.1 The impugned Act is an excessive delegation of power.
1.1.1 “Delegation”1 is an act of entrusting a person with the power or empowering him to act
on behalf of that person who has given him that power or to act as his agent or representative.
Delegated legislation has been defined by Salmond as “that which proceeds from any
authority other than the sovereign power and is therefore dependent for its continued
existence and validity on some superior or supreme authority”2. The term ‘delegated
legislation’ is used in two senses: (a) exercise by a subordinate agency of the legislative
power delegated to it by the legislature, or (b) the subsidiary rules themselves which are made
by the subordinate authority in pursuance of the power conferred on it by the legislature3.”
1.1.2 According to the doctrine of excessive delegation, if the legislature excessively

delegates its legislative function to any other authority, such delegation will be held
unconstitutional4.
In Re: Delhi Laws Act5, it was held by a 7-judge bench that:
"The legislature cannot part with its essential legislative function which consists in declaring
its policy and making it a binding rule of conduct. Surrendering all, this essential function
would amount to abdication of the legislative powers in the eye of law. The policy may be
particularized in as few or as many words as is thought proper. But it is enough if an
intelligent guidance is given to subordinate authority”.
1
G. Bryan, ‘Black’s Law Dictionary’, 9th Ed., 2009, West Group
2
Ghosh, Yashomati, Textbook on Administrative Law, (Lexis Nexis, 1st ed., Dec 2016)
3
Jain, M.P & Jain, S.N, Principles of Administrative Law, (Lexis Nexis 7th ed., 2017)
4
Justice Bhagwati Prosad Banerjee and Bhasker Banerjee, Judicial Control of Administrative Action (Lexis
Nexis 3rd ed.,2016)
5
AIR 1951 SC 332

Kania C.J. further stated that ‘though legislature can confer powers to make rules and
regulations for carrying the enactment into “operation and effect”, it should lay down the
“policy and principles providing the rule of conduct”6. The wide latitude in rule-making
power to any non-legislative authority can be left only in “cases of emergency like war”.
In Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India7 , the court held that “declaring the legislative
policy and laying down the standard with sufficient clarity constitutes ‘essential legislative
function’, which cannot be delegated.
In Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd.8, the permissibility of

delegation was further restricted only to ‘mode of implementation’.
1.1.3 Applying the above principles to the present case, the impugned Act empowers the state
government to declare any service as essential service by notification in official gazette and
when so declared any strike committed in such service will be a cognizable offence. The
preamble of the Act states that “it is to provide for the maintenance of certain essential
services and the normal life of the community in the State of Dharmania”. But the Act neither
does not define what an essential service is nor does it lay down any guidelines for
determining it.
1.1.4 It is submitted that the impugned Act suffers from the vice of excessive delegation as
the legislature has laid down no discernible policy in either the text of the Act or in the
accompanying Statement of Objects and Reasons as to what constitutes an essential service.
In The Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981 made by the Parliament of India under List
No. 3 in Concurrent List of 7th Schedule of Constitution of India, Section 2(1)9 clearly
defines as to what constitutes an Essential service. But the impugned Act of Dharmania state
does not lay down a proper definition of ‘Essential service’ rather as per Sec 2(a) defines
‘essential service as any service under the Government which the Government may, by
notification in the Gazette, declare to be an essential service.
Thus, there is clearly complete delegation of power to determine what constitutes an essential
service on the government.
6
ibid
7
1984) 3 SCC 127
8
(1997) 5 SCC 516
9
Section 2, Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981.

1.1.5 It is therefore submitted that the impugned Act does not stand scrutiny as the legislature
has not declared the standard or guidelines to be followed by the State Government while
declaring any service as essential service. The Act in effect completely delegates power to
notify any service as essential service without guidance and therefore violates the doctrine of
Excessive Delegation.
Hence the impugned Act is an excessive delegation of power and therefore not valid.
1.2 The impugned Act and Notification is ultra vires the Constitution
1.2.1 The Constitution of India guarantees essential human rights in the form of Fundamental
Rights under part III which are fundamental in the governing of the country10.Fundamental
rights are a basic feature of the Indian constitution as interpreted and laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala11.
Article 13 is the key provision of the Constitution as it gives teeth to the fundamental rights
and makes them justiciable. According to Article 13(2)12, the State shall not make any law
which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights and a law contravening fundamental
right is to the extent of the contravention void. Any law made in contravention of part III is
dead from the very beginning and cannot be taken notice of or read for any purpose
whatsoever13.
❖ The impugned Act and notification are arbitrary and violates Art 14.
1.2.2 Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the Right to Equality:

“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of the law
within the territories of India.”
Constitution bench of the Supreme Court further interpreted and widened the scope of Art. 14
and laid down the Doctrine of Arbitrariness in E. P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu14. In this
case, the Supreme Court laid a basic, new dimension to Article 14 and held it to be
a guarantee against arbitrariness. In the present case, Supreme Court held that
10
Jain, M.P; Indian Constitutional Law, (6th ed.), at pg. 897
11
(1973) 4 SCC 225
12
Indian Constitutional Law, Dr. Kailash Rai, ( Central Law Publications, 6th ed.)
13
Rajesh Vij v. Ramendra Pal Singh Seth (2005) 8 SCC 504
14
AIR 1974 SC 555

"Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and it cannot be 'cribbed, cabined
and confined' within the traditional and doctrinaire limits. From the positivistic point
of view equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are
sworn enemies.... Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both
according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article
14...."15.
In Sharma Transport v. Government of A. P16, it was observed that the expression

‘arbitrarily’ means: in an unreasonable manner. An action fixed or taken capriciously or at
pleasure, without adequately determining the principle is not found in the nature of things, it
is non-rational. It merely implies depending on the will alone rather than acting according to
reason or judgment.
In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi17 , the court held that wherever there is
arbitrariness in State action – be it of the legislature or of the executive or of any “authority”
under Article 12, Article 14 must immediately spring into State action to strike down such
state action. Article 14 is meant to strike back at arbitrariness because any action that is
arbitrary involves negation of equality. The concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness,
in fact, is the essence of our constitution and is the golden thread which runs through its
fabric.
1.2.3 Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of
treatment18. It requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some
rational and relevant principle which is non- discriminatory: it must not be guided by any
extraneous or irrelevant considerations, because that would be denial of equality 19. The
principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally as well as philosophically an
essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness is protected by Article 14 and it must
characterize every State action, whether it be under authority of law or in exercise of
executive power without making of law20.
15
ibid
16
(2002) 2 SCC 188.
17
(1981) 1 SCC 722
18
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
19
ibid
20
R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority, 1979 SCR (3)1014

1.2.4 In the present case, the object of Dharmania Civil Services Act,1980 is to
provide for the maintenance of certain essential services and the normal life of the
community in the State of Dharmania. The Act does not define what an essential service is
but empowers the State Government to declare any service as essential service by notification
in official gazette. The Act also provides that if a service is declared essential, resorting to
strike in that service is a cognizable offence and persons who commit the offence is liable to
be dismissed from service and is punishable with imprisonment for a term upto 10 years and
also liable to fine upto Rs. 5lakhs.The Act gives uncanalised and unguided powers to the
State Government to declare any service as an essential service without drawing any
guidelines from the contents of the Act in an arbitrary manner.
1.2.5 It is also submitted that the provision related to punishment is also unreasonable.
Resorting to strike in services declared as essential service is considered as a cognizable
offence as per the Act. In addition to being dismissed from service, any person who commits
the alleged offence is also punishable with imprisonment for a term upto 10 years and also
liable to fine upto Rs. 5lakhs.Thus the impugned Act tries to supress strikes in an essential
service in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner. The Act altogether declares all strikes
whether peaceful or not as illegal in an arbitrary manner.
1.2.6 The impugned notification is also struck by Art 14. On receiving strike notice on
20/12/2002, the State government issued notification No. S.R.O 2019/2002 dated 25/12/2002
and declared all services under the government as essential service. Instead of bringing only
those very necessary and important services under the purview of the Act, the State
government adopted a blanket approach and brought all services under the government as
‘essential service’. This is an arbitrary exercise of power delegated to the government under
the impugned Act.
Thus, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the impugned Act and
Notification is hit by the Doctrine of Arbitrariness and is therefore violative of Art 14.

❖ Impugned Act and notification violate Art 19
1.2.7 The impugned Act violates freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Art
19(1)(a) and freedom to form associations or unions under Art 19(1)(c)21. Freedom of speech
under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to express one’s views through any medium, which
can be by way of writing, speaking, gesture or in any other form. Strike is a form of
expressing employees concerns about labour dispute or directed against an unfair labour
practice of the employer. Conventions of ILO have also recognised Right to strike as a
corollary of Freedom of association or union22.
The Act aims to completely deprive employees of their right to strike guaranteed under Art
19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) and the restrictions imposed do not constitute a reasonable restriction
permissible under Art 19(2) and 19(4) respectively.
❖ The impugned Act and notification violate Art 21.
1.2.8 Art.21 guarantees right to life and personal liberty. The provision related to punishment
for strike (i.e., dismissal and imprisonment & fine) in essential service deprives an employee
of his life and personal liberty. The law which deprives employees of this cardinal right is
neither just, fair and reasonable as held by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India23. Thus, the impugned Act violates fundamental right guaranteed under Art 21.
❖ Impugned Act and notification violate Art 23.
1.2.9 Art 23 provides Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour. According to
Art 23(1) Traffic in human beings and beggar and other similar forms of forced labour are
prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in
accordance with law.
According to the ILO Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) , forced or compulsory
labour is: “ all work or service which is extended from any person under the threat of a
21
Dr. Kailash Rai, Indian Constitutional Law, 6th ed.
22
Bernard Gernigon, Alberto Odero &Horacio Guido, ILO Principles Concerning the Right to Strike,
International Labour Review, Vol. 137 (2000), No. 4
23
AIR 1978 SC 597

penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily”24.The
employees in State of Dharmania are to undergo forced labour under the threat of Cognizable
offence and not resort to strike or other forms of dissent. This clearly amounts to forced
labour and violates Art 23.
Thus, it is submitted that the impugned Act and Notification

violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14,19,21,23 of the Constitution and in
accordance with Art 13 is ultra vires the constitution.
1.3 The Impugned Act violates the constitutional right guaranteed under Art 311(2).
1.3.1 Art 311 of the Constitution of India deals with the Dismissal, removal or reduction in
rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. Art 311(2) states:
No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after
an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges Provided that where it is proposed
after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the
basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such
person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed:
It is mandatory under Article 311(2) to make an inquiry before the dismissal, removal or
reduction in rank of a civil servant. In that inquiry the civil servant has to be informed of the
charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those
charges25.
1.3.2 In the present case, as per the Dharmania Civil Services Act, 1980 a person who resort
to strike in essential service is liable to be dismissed from service. The Act does not provide
any provision of enquiry but rather by making the strike illegal and a criminal offence is
dispensing away the inquiry required under Art 311(2).
1.3.4 It is also submitted that the Act by making the strikes in essential service a cognizable
offence intends to dispense with enquiry required under 311(2) and tries to cover the case
24
C029 - Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
25
Supra note 22

under proviso a to Art311(2). The impugned Act does not provide the employees with
reasonable opportunity to be heard and the enquiry is also dispensed and all persons who
resort to strike are dismissed even without any enquiry. This clearly violates the
constitutional right guaranteed under Art 311(2).
Coming to facts of the present case, it is humbly submitted that the Respondent was acquitted
by the Hon’ble High Court of Dharmania after declaring the Act and notification as void.
Thus, the dismissal mandated under the Act is also unconstitutional and invalid.
1.3.5 An acquittal of a person of a criminal charge by a higher Court setting aside the
conviction passed by a subordinate or an inferior Court is tantamount to the person not
having been convicted at all. The word "conviction" used in proviso (a) to Article 311(2) can
have only one meaning that the person convicted must have been convicted finally26.
In Dilbagh Rai v. Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway27, it has been held by

Grover, J. that if a person is acquitted by a Court of law, then it cannot be said that there is
any conviction in the sense in which it is used under proviso (a) to Article 311(2) of the
Constitution.
In Tarini Kumar v. Chief Commercial Superintendent, Eastern Railway28, it was held that
when a conviction is set aside by the appellate Court, the position at law would be as If the
government servant was never convicted at law and the dismissal not having been made in
conformity with Article 311(2), became a nullity from the date of acquittal on appeal.
Thus it is submitted that the Appellant in present case is not entitled to the benefit of Sub-
clause (a) of the proviso to Article 311(2), and the respondent is entitled to the protection of
Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution.
Thus, based on the above contentions it is submitted by the Counsels for Respondent that the
Dharmania Civil Services Act, 1980 and the Notification issued under it is an excessive
delegation of Legislative power and is also unconstitutional and therefore need to held void.
26
Dhanji Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1965 Punj 153
27
AIR 1959 Punj 401
28
AIR 1965 Cal 75

2. WHETHER BANNING STRIKE IN WHOLESALE FASHION AS HAS BEEN

DONE BY GOVERNMENT VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF
EMPLOYEES?
2.1 Impugned provision Violates Article 19(1)(a)
2.1.1 It is necessary here to refer to Article 13 of the Constitution of India. The relevant
Clause is (2) of Article 13 which reads as follows: -
"The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this
Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention
be void. “Article 13 of the Indian constitution which presents itself in four parts, makes the
concept of fundamental rights more powerful and gives it a real effect. This article protects
the individual’s fundamental rights by rendering any law null and void if it intervenes with
the liberty or is inconsistent in any way with the fundamental right of the person.
In this particular case, the rule made governing the working conditions of the employees is
made without any guidance i.e.; without any rule making power of the instrumentalities of the
state. Therefore, it is found to be ultra vires of the Fundamental rights guaranteed under Part
III of the Constitution of India.
2.1.2 Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens the right to
freedom of speech and expression. The law states that, “all citizens shall have the right to
freedom of speech and expression”. It is important to note that a restriction on the freedom of
speech of any citizen may be placed as much by an action of the State as by its inaction29.
Thus, failure on the part of the State to guarantee to all its citizens irrespective of their
circumstances and the class to which they belong, the fundamental right to freedom of speech
and expression would constitute a violation of Article 19(1)(a).
The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is regarded as one of the most
basic elements of a healthy democracy for it allows its citizens to participate fully and
effectively in the social and political process of the country30. In fact, the freedom of speech
and expression gives greater scope and meaning to the citizenship of a person extending the
concept from the level of basic existence to giving the person a political and social life.
29
All India Bank Association v. National Industrial Tribunal, 1962 SCR (3) 269
30
Seervai H M. Constitutional Law of India, 4th Edition, Silver jubilee edition Vol 2, Universal Law Publishing
Co. Pvt. Ltd.

2.1.3 Under the provisions of Indian law, the right to invoke the freedom of speech arguments
is not limited to individuals alone. Corporations are also entitled to invoke such arguments.
The cases of Bennet and Coleman & Co. v. Union of India31 and Indian Express
Newspapers (Bombay) P. Ltd v. Union of India32, are of great significance. In these cases,
the corporations filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of notifications
issued by the Government. After much deliberation, the Courts held that the right to freedom
of speech cannot be taken away with the object of placing restrictions on the business
activities of citizens. However, the limitation on the exercise of the right under Article
19(1)(a) not falling within the four corners of 19(2) is not valid33.
2.1.4 Expression through speech is one of the basic guarantees provided by civil society.
However, in modern world Right to freedom of speech and expression is not limited to
express ones’ view through words but it also includes circulating one’s views in writing or
through audiovisual instrumentalities, through advertisements and through any other
communication channel. It also comprises of right to information, freedom of press etc. It is a
right to express and self-realization.
2.1.5 In this particular case, the employees carried out a peaceful strike as it is their only way
of expressing their grievances when no action is taken by the employer. And the right to
strike is a right to free expression, association, assembly and power. Labour and employment
laws in India typically adopt a pro-employee approach and seek to protect the interests of
employees, as employees are traditionally believed to have lesser bargaining powers. In the
context of industrial relationships, some of the most important pieces of legislation that
recognize and uphold the right to free speech and expression are the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 and the Trade Unions Act, 1926, which enable employees (falling under the ‘workman’
category) to raise employee grievances, form trade unions and participate in lawful strikes
and demonstrations.
Also, right to strike is very important in the modern economic transactions. It is the key
weapon in the hands of the workers to get their demand satisfied from the employer. In the
modern world right to strike should be inalienable and inherent right to be given to the
workers.
31
(1973) 2 SCR 757
32
AIR 1986 SC 515
33
Bank of India v. T.S. Kalewala, 1990 SCR (3) 214

And in this case, the impugned act struck down the freedom of speech and expression of the
employees as in this case the form of freedom of speech and expression by the employees
was by way of strike and thus violates Article 19(1)(a).
2.2 Impugned Provision Violates Article 19(1)(c)
2.2.1 Article 19(1)(c) guarantees to all citizens, the right to form associations or unions of
their choice voluntarily, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. The right to form
association includes the right to form companies, societies, partnerships, trade union and
political parties34. The right guaranteed is not merely the right to form association but also to
continue with the association as such. The freedom to form association implies also the
freedom to form or not to form, to join or not to join, an association or union.
2.2.2 If there is no right to strike, the right to form associations will be hollow. Then why
such right is given at first place. The Indian judiciary through the series of judicial decisions
emphasized on the legality or illegality of strike, but didn’t impose a ban on the right to
strike. The Apex Court held that the membership of trade union if sufficient is able to
bargain. But such bargaining power is highly reduced when no right to strike is given to the
workers.
In All India Bank Association v. National Industrial Tribunal35, it was contended that the
right to form association guaranteed by Article 19(1) (c) of the Constitution, also carried with
it the concomitant right to strike for otherwise the right to form association would be
rendered illusory.
2.2.3 The right to strike is a statutory right in India guaranteed under Section 22(1)(a) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1957. The section provides that in case of breach of contract in
public utility service, the workers can go for the strike with a prior notice to be given to the
employer. Right to strike is a very important tool in the hands of workers. It helps the
workers to negotiate for the better working environment and proper wages etc. Right to strike
is the very essence of collective bargaining.
Section 22(1)(a) provides various conditions to be satisfied before going for such strike. The
Supreme Court has said that workers have the right to go on peaceful strike. But the demands
34
Bennet and Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, 1973 AIR 106,1973 SCR (2) 757
35
1962 SCR (3) 269

they claim should be legitimate. Justice Krishna Iyer and PN Bhagwati in a case held that
strike can be illegal or legal one and even the illegal strike can sometimes be justified.
It is the principle of social justice and well recognized by industrial jurisprudence. It is

available to the employees as their legal right also and they can go for the peaceful strike to
negotiate for their demands with the employer. It is Collective bargaining and the right to
strike go hand in hand. Industrial Disputes Act has differentiated between legal and illegal
strikes. So, it can be said that upon compliance of all requirements as mentioned in Section
22 and 23, a strike can be legal and justified one.
It defines 'illegal strikes' as those which are in contravention to the procedure of going to
strike, as laid down under Sections 22 and 23. The provision thereby implies that all strikes
are not illegal and strikes in conformity with the procedure laid down, are legally recognized.
Further, Justice Krishna Iyer had opined that "a strike could be legal or illegal and even an
illegal strike could be a justified one" in Gujarat Steel Tubes v. Mazdoor Sabha36, is thus
beyond doubt that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 contemplates a right to strike.
2.2.4 It is observed by Alladi Kapuskasing– that it is true that in some cases the right to strike
is being misused but that is no reason why all strikes should be condemned as immoral. The
right to strike can be a crucial instrument for ensuring the basic socio-economic rights of
workers and all citizens. Thus, in this case, the employees carried out a peaceful strike
without any sort of violence or armed forces. Thus, it is humbly submitted that the impugned
legislation contravened the fundamental right guaranteed to trade unions by the provision
contained in Article 19 (1)(c).
2.3 Not covered under reasonable restriction in Article 19
2.3.1 Article 19(3) grants the state authority to impose a restriction on the freedom to
assemble peacefully without arms. Freedom to hold assembly as laid in Article 19(1)(b)
includes the right to hold protests, conduct meetings etc. However, this freedom can be
restricted on the grounds of Sovereignty and Integrity of India and in the interest of public
order. As per the constitution, the assembly ought to the peaceful and unarmed.
In Chintaman Rao v. the State of MP37, the Supreme Court opined that a restriction in order
to be referred to as reasonable shall not be arbitrary and shall not be beyond what is required
36
1980 SCR (2) 146
37
Chintaman Rao v. State of MP, 1951 AIR 118 1950 SCR 759

in the interest of the public. The reasonable implies intelligent care and deliberation
Legislation which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain the
quality of reasonableness and unless it strikes a proper balance between the freedom
guaranteed.
2.3.2 The assembly must be Non-violent and must not cause any breach of public peace. If
the assembly is disorderly or riotous then it is not protected under Article 19 (1) (b) and
reasonable restrictions may be imposed under clause (3) of Article 19 in the interests of
'sovereignty and integrity of India' or public order.
2.3.3. Tests of Reasonable Restrictions.
Articles 19(2) to (6) impose limitations on the freedoms guaranteed by Arts.19 (1)(a) to (g).
It has been said that it is the rights, which are fundamental, and not the limitations. But these
observations overlook the fact that the rights granted are not absolute but are subject to
permissible restrictions. Thus, the freedom to speak does not mean the freedom to say
whatever one likes, but freedom subject to the laws of libel, sedition, blasphemy and the like.
Again, the freedom of assembly is subject to the assembly being peaceful and not causing a
breach of public peace. The rights represent the claims of the individual and the limitations
represent the claims of other individuals and the claims of the State or society.
2.3.4 Certain general considerations have been laid down in amplifying the tests of
reasonableness. Thus, in considering whether restrictions are reasonable it is relevant to
consider whether the law imposing them is temporary or permanent. Again, when the State
has to take swift decisions in emergent situations of apprehended danger, restrictions may be
considered reasonable which would not be considered otherwise reasonable. And it is
necessary to inquire whether the impugned law provides reasonable safeguards as, for
example, by conferring a right of appeal or review, or a right to have the matter judicially
determined. A legislature cannot restrict the freedoms beyond Art 19 (2) to (6). Before
proceeding to the tests which determine the reasonability of the restrictions it is important to
know the nature of the restrictions and the clauses giving it.
2.3.5 While the Constitution of India does not define forced labour, the Supreme Court of
India has read this provision expansively, and provided specific guidance on the definition. In
the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India and Others, 1982, the
Supreme Court of India determined that forced labour should be defined as any labour for

which the worker receives less than the government-stipulated minimum wage: “ordinarily
no one would willingly supply labour or service to another for less than the minimum wage
unless he is acting under the force of some compulsion which drives him to work though he
is paid less than what he is entitled under law to receive38.”
According to the ILO Forced Labour Convention, 1930, forced or compulsory labour is: "all
work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty and for which
the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily."In addition to being a serious
violation of fundamental human rights and labour rights, the exaction of forced labour is a
criminal offence.
2.3.6 Also here in this case, the employees fall under the category of forced labour under
Article 23 of the Indian Constitution. Because of the increased cost of living, it was difficult
for them to meet their needs. And for that they need to get a minimum wage and thus they've
claimed for a revision of emoluments. However, the government didn’t concede to their
demands and ultimately the strike commenced. So, in this case, the employees carried out the
strike as their freedom of expression. Although they've informed about the strike. Also no
restrictions falls under the same as the employees have got their fundamental rights. And
therefore, the impugned act struck down the fundamental rights of the employees and thus
violates the article.
2.4 Impugned provision violates right to life under Article 21
2.4.1 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.’ The right to life is
undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
provides that, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.”
‘Life’ in Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely the physical act of breathing. It does not
connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider
meaning which includes right to live with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to health,
right to pollution free air, etc.
38
Constitutional law of India, Dr. J N Pandey

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India39, the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Art. 21
and held that the right to live is not merely a physical right but includes within its ambit the
right to live with human dignity40.
2.4.2 Right to life covers within its ambit the right to social security and protection of family.
K. Ramaswamy J., in Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (India) Ltd. v. Subhash
Chandra Bose41, held that right to social and economic justice is a fundamental right under
Art. 21. The learned judge explained that the right to life and dignity of a person and status
without means were cosmetic rights. Socio-economic rights were, therefore, basic aspirations
for meaning the right to life and that Right to Social Security and Protection of Family were
an integral part of the right to life.
Article 21 of the Constitution is a basic right that is available to all persons in India and the
Supreme Court of India has mandated the ‘right to live with dignity’ as a right to life all the
employees of a industry should be entitled to get the provision of subsistence allowance. The
only reason that the Supreme Court has emphasized on subsistence allowance being a right
under Article 21 is to ensure that an employee could survive and meet basic expenses for
livelihood.
2.4.3 Therefore in this case, the living cost have increased and therefore the employees
claimed for the revision of emoluments. And here it would be difficult for them to survive as
well because even, they rely on their salaries and that is the only source of income for them to
meet their basic and necessary expenses.
2.5 Impugned provision violates golden triangle (Article 14,19 & 21)
• Article 14 – Equality before the law, the state shall not deny any person equality
before the law or equal protection of law within the territorial limits of India or
prohibition on the grounds of race, caste, religion, sex or place of birth.
• Article 19 – Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech and expression.
All citizen shall have the right
o To freedom of speech and expression
o To assemble peacefully and without arms
o To form associations or unions
39
AIR 1978 SC 597
40
Combat Law: The Human Rights magazine, Volume 2 Issue 6
41
AIR 1992 SC 573

• Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty, no person shall be deprived of his
personal liberty except according to the procedures established by law.
2.5.1 These rights are regarded as the basic principles for the smooth running of life for the
citizens of our country. The golden triangle provides full protection to individuals from any
encroachment upon their rights from the society and others as well. Article 14, it provides for
equality before law and equal protection of the law. The provisions of this article also
envisage certain legal rights like equal protection of law which purely means that the law
should be the same for every person with some necessary exceptions.
2.5.2 One of the merits of the of our Constitution is that it neither restricts a person from
enforcing his fundamental rights, nor it provides full freedom to a person in such a manner
that he exploits or violates such rights himself or against the society. Even as early as 1961,
the Supreme court in Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar42 – that even a very liberal lead to
the conclusion that the trade unions have a guaranteed fundamental right to strike.
Ahmadi J. in B.R. Singh v. Union of India43 observed: "The right to form associations or
unions is a fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution. Section 8 of the
Trade Unions Act provides for registration of a trade union if all the requirements of the said
enactment are fulfilled. The right to form associations and unions and provide for their
registration was recognized obviously for conferring certain rights on trade unions. The
necessity to form unions is obviously for voicing the demands and grievances of labour.
Trade unionists act as mouthpieces of labour.
2.5.3 In Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration44, the court ruled out that to preserve
human dignity is very essential and manacling a man is dehumanizing. The prisoner is not an
animal and Article 14, 19 and 21 come into action.
The strength of a trade union depends on its membership. Therefore, trade unions with
sufficient membership strength are able to bargain more effectively; reduced if it is not
permitted to demonstrate. "Strike in a given situation is only a form of demonstration. There
are different modes of demonstrations, e.g., go-slow, sit-in, work-to-rule, absenteeism, etc.,
and strike is one such mode of demonstration by workers for their rights. The right to
demonstrate and, therefore, the right to strike is an important weapon in the armoury of the
42
AIR 1952 SC 252
43
1989 SCR Supl. (1) 257
44
1980 AIR 1535

workers. This right has been recognized by almost all democratic countries Though not raised
to the high pedestal of a fundamental right, it is recognized as a mode of redress for resolving
the grievances of workers".
2.5.4 Therefore, in this case the employees used strike as their last weapon and there had
been no chaos or maladministration on the part of the employees and was for a legitimate
cause.
Though the word 'strike' is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution, as long as the strike
remains peaceful, the society is bound to support the legitimate cause.
“To no one should the right and justice be delayed, sold or denied” – promises our
constitution but still the injustice is been seen.
3. WHETHER IMPRISONMENT UPTO 10 YEARS AND FINE UPTO RS. 5 LAKSHS

PROVIDED UNDER DHARMANIA CIVIL SERVICES ACT, 1980 IS A CRUEL AND
UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT HIT BY PROTECTION AFFORDED UNDER ART. 14
AND 21?
It is submitted by the counsels for Respondent that the punishment provided under the
impugned Act for resorting to strike is cruel and unusual punishment. According to the Act,
resorting to strike in essential service is a cognizable offence and one who commits the
offence is liable to be dismissed from service and is punishable with imprisonment upto 10
years and also to fine upto Rs 5 lakhs. The provision related to punishment provided under
the Act is said to be cruel and unusual on the following grounds:
3.1 Impugned provision violates Art 14.
3.1.1 Art 14 of the Constitution guarantees Equality before Law. What Article 14 prohibits is
hostile discrimination and not reasonable classification45.
While reasonable classification is permissible, such classification must be based upon some
real and substantial distinction bearing a reasonable and just relation to the object sought to
be attained, and the classification cannot be made arbitrarily and without any substantial
basis46. To pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely,
45
Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771
46
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India, 1950 SCR 869

(i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes
persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and
(ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved47.
3.1.2 In the present case, the impugned provision brings about an unreasonable classification
between employees in essential and non-essential services, wherein the employees in the
former category can be held liable for a cognizable offence with punishment upto 10 years
and fine upto 5 lakhs for resorting to strike. Thus, the Act makes strike by employees in
essential service as a cognizable criminal offence, which does not have reasonable and just
relation to the object of Act, i.e., “to provide for the maintenance of certain essential services
and the normal life of the community in the State of Kerala”.
3.1.3 The impugned provision makes strike by employees in essential service as Cognizable
offence. The expression "cognizable offence" is defined in Section 2(c) of Cr.P.C. to be 'an
offence for which a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any
other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant'. Generally, cognizable
offence means an offence in which a police officer has the authority to make an arrest without
a warrant and to start an investigation with or without the permission of a court.
The impugned provision made the strike in essential service altogether as a cognizable
offence. There is no intelligible difference as to why it is made a ‘Cognizable Offence’. It is
also submitted that such a provision does not have a rational relation to the object sought to
be achieved.
3.1.4 The punishment provided for the offence is too cruel, harsh and unusual. In this regard
kind attention of the Hon’ble court is brought to the following facts:
▪ Section 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO
Act) prescribes minimum punishment for penetrative sexual assault as 10 years
imprisonment.
▪ Section 12 of POCSO Act prescribes maximum punishment for sexual harassment as
3 years imprisonment.
▪ Sec 166 Indian Penal Code (IPC) -For the offence of public servant disobeying law,
with intent to cause injury to any person punishment provided is 1 year imprisonment.
47
Saurabh Chaudhari v Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 2212

Even in the above crimes which can be called heinous/serious the punishment provided is less
than or equivalent to the punishment prescribed under the impugned Act. The Act arbitrarily
and unreasonably categorizes strike in essential service as a cognizable offence and provides
a cruel and unusual punishment of 10 years imprisonment to it.
3.1.5 In Binu v. State of Kerala48, Court held that, “KESMA is not intended to deal with
heinous crimes affecting society at large such as offences under the NDPS Act, or the Abkari
Act or the terrorists dealt with by the TADA Act. May be, strike by Government Servants in
essential services does disrupt the normal and smooth functioning of the society. But that
does not mean that a person suspected of an offence under KESMA can be arrested by a
police officer without a warrant and held indefinitely without recourse to a judicial forum till
he is tried or enlarged by operation of the proviso (a) to Section 167(2) coming into
operation. While the legislature may, for good reason, circumscribe or even severely restrict
or limit the power of the court to grant bail to an accused at the pre-trial state, we are of the
opinion that, total negation of such a right would amount to infringement of the fundamental
rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, which are available to all persons
including persons suspected of an offence under KESMA”.
Thus, based on the above arguments it is submitted that punishment of imprisonment upto 10
years and fine upto Rs. 5 lakhs provided under Dharmania Civil Services Act, 1980 is a cruel
and unusual punishment hit by protection afforded by Art. 14.
3.2 The impugned provision contravenes Dharmania Civil Services (Classification,

Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960.
3.2.1 It is submitted that the provision related to punishment in the impugned Act contravenes
the Dharmania Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960.The impugned
provisions lays down that a person resorting to strike is liable to be dismissed from service
and in addition is also punishable with imprisonment upto 10 years and fine upto Rs. 5 lakhs.
Dharmania Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960 (herein after
referred to as CCA rules), was made by Governor in accordance with power conferred by the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 11 of CCA Act prescribes the nature
48
2002CriLJ4374

of penalties that can be imposed on government servants for misconduct. According to the
rule highest possible penalty that can be imposed is dismissal from service, but in the
impugned Act for resorting to strike, along with dismissal, criminal offence is also charged
on employees in essential service. This clearly contravenes the rule provided under CCA
Rules as far as it applies to government servants.
3.3 Impugned provision violates Art 21.

3.3.1 Article 21 secures two rights:
1) Right to life, and 2) Right to personal liberty.
The Article prohibits the deprivation of the above rights except according to a procedure
established by law.
Justice Field in the celebrated case “Munn v. Illinois” 49held that the word “life” is more
than mere animal existence and it embraces within itself not only the physical existence but
also the quality of life. The expression “personal liberty” not only means freedom from arrest,
detention and false or wrongful confinement but also covers those rights and privileges that
are essential to achieve happiness with freedom.
The seven judges’ bench of Apex court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India50 upheld the
contentions of petitioner that the procedure established under Article 21 should be just, fair
and reasonable. Further such procedure should be tested under Articles 14 and 19 of the
Constitution. Krishna Iyer, J., observed that “Law prescribing a procedure for deprivation of
life and personal liberty in Article 21 could not be any sort of procedure but it had to be one
that was neither arbitrary nor unfair nor unreasonable”. Thus, the due process concept is
read under Article 21 by articulating that ‘procedure established by law’ must be fair, just and
reasonable.
BHAGWATI, J., observed in the same case “The principle of reasonableness, which legally
as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades
Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and that It must be “‘right and just and fair” and
not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the
requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied”51.
49
94 U.S. 113 (1876
50
Supra note 6
51
Supra note 6

3.3.2 In the present case, the provision related to punishment in the impugned Act deprives
employees in essential service of their Right to life and personal Liberty. Any person who
engages in Strike can be arrested without a warrant by police as it is made a cognizable
offence. Further punishment of 10years, which is unreasonable also goes against the personal
liberty of a person. It is submitted that the procedure contemplated under the Act is neither
just, fair and reasonable. Arresting persons for undergoing strike and punishing them for
imprisonment upto 10 years in addition to dismissal is arbitrary, fanciful and shows the
oppressive face of the government of Dharmania in suppressing employees’ rights guaranteed
under Art 19(1)(a). Therefore, requirement of fair, just reasonable procedure is not all
satisfied and the impugned provision violates Art 21.
3.4 Proportionality principle and Punishment
3.4.1 The principle of proportionality evaluates two aspects of a decision52:

(1) whether the relative merits of differing objectives or interests were appropriately weighed
or "fairly balanced"?
(2) whether the measure in question was in the circumstances excessively restrictive or
inflicted an unnecessary burden on affected persons?
The decision of court in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India53 "lays the seeds of the
proportionality principle in Indian administrative law without recourse to any constitutional
principle". In this case, a signalman in the Army was already serving a 28-day punishment for
insubordination. During this period, he refused to eat his food even though directly ordered to
do so. This further act of insubordination made his Commanding Officer try him for
summary court martial. He was subsequently removed from service. The High Court
dismissed his writ petition. The Supreme Court held that a sentence should not be so
disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and that the doctrine of
proportionality would ensure that if a decision of the court even as to sentence is an
outrageous defiance of logic, then it was not immune from correction54.
52
De Smith, Woolf and Jowell on Judicial Review of Administrative Action 5th Edn. (1995), Sweet and
Maxwell at pp. 595-96
53
AIR 1987 SC 2386
54
ibid

3.4.2 In Bhagat Ram v. State of H. P55, a forest guard allowed K to cut 21 trees (17 in forest
land and 4 in private land of K). K paid compensation for the illegal felling but a disciplinary
inquiry was initiated against the forest guard for (i) illicit felling of trees causing loss to the
Government, and (ii) negligence in performing his duties. He was removed from service after
charges were proved against him. The High Court dismissed his writ petition. On appeal the
Supreme Court observed that "the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of
the misconduct, and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would
be violative of Article 14"56.Therefore, a minor penalty was ordered keeping in view the
nature of misconduct, gravity of charges and no consequential loss.
3.4.3 In the present case the punishment provided under the Act is not proportionate to the
misconduct or offence alleged to be committed. For resorting to strike, a person is dismissed
from service and also punished with imprisonment upto 10 years and fine of Rs 5 lakhs. This
punishment is 'shockingly' disproportionate to the misconduct. The impugned provision in
Act does not take into account the principle of proportionality at all.
Thus, based on the above contentions it is humbly submitted

that the imprisonment upto 10 years and fine upto Rs. 5 lakhs provided under dharmania civil
services act, 1980 is a cruel and unusual punishment which is severely disproportionate to the
misconduct contemplated and violates art 14 and 21 of the constitution.
4. WHETHER IMPUGNED ACT INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHT OF

EMPLOYEES GUARANTEED UNDER CUSTOMARY INTERNATION LAW?
Strikes are an essential means available to workers and their organizations to protect their
interests. Although the taking of strike action is a basic right, a strike is not pursued for its
own sake. Rather, it is a last resort for workers and their organizations, one that typically
follows unsuccessful and contentious negotiations.
In this particular case, the employees carried out a peaceful strike regarding the revision of
emoluments. So here it is the basic right of the employees to carry out the strike.
55
(1983) 2 SCC 442
56
ibid

4.1 Right to strike guaranteed under international law
International Labour Organization mandates that a right to organize and collective bargaining
shall be given to the employees. Although, there are no express provisions on the right to
strike. But ILO Committee of experts has regarded this right indispensable and an integral
part of the right to organize. The preamble of ILO has emphasized on the right to strike as an
essence of collective bargaining.
Even though, no fundamental right status has been given to the right to strike, it is still a legal
and statutory right. Article 51(c) of the Indian Constitution says that the state shall have to
respect for international law and treaties and Article 253 of the Constitution says that such
international laws and treaties should be ratified by the Indian parliament. All the
international laws and conventions such as of the International Labour Organization and
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 has adopted in its very basic structure the right
to strike.
4.1.1 ILO principles concerning the right to strike
The Committee on Freedom of Association has recognized that strike action is a right and not
simply a social act, and has also:
• made it clear it is a right which worker and their organizations (trade unions,
federations and confederations) are entitled to enjoy;
• reduced the number of categories of workers who may be deprived of this right, as
well as the legal restrictions on its exercise, which should not be excessive; 57
• linked the exercise of the right to strike to the objective of promoting and defending
the economic and social interests of workers (which criterion excludes strikes of a
purely political nature from the scope of international protection provided by the ILO,
although the Committee makes no direct statement or indication regarding sympathy
strikes other than that they cannot be banned outright; this matter will be examined
subsequently);
• stated that the legitimate exercise of the right to strike should not entail prejudicial
penalties of any sort, which would imply acts of anti-union discrimination.
57
Bernard Gernigon, Alberto Odero &Horacio Guido, ILO Principles Concerning the Right to Strike,
International Labour Review, Vol. 137 (2000), No. 4

On the basis of the definition of “workers’ organization” contained in Article 10 of

Convention No. 87, the Committee on Freedom of Association considers that “strikes of a
purely political nature … do not fall within the scope of the principles of freedom of
association” (ILO, 1996d, para. 481). However, although the Committee has expressly stated
that “it is only in so far as trade union organizations do not allow their occupational demands
to assume a purely political aspect that they can legitimately claim that there should be no
interference in their activities”, it has also specified that it is difficult to draw a clear
distinction between what is political and what is, properly speaking, trade union in character,
and that these two notions overlap.
In another case B.R Singh and others v. Union of India,58 the Supreme Court categorically
observed that the right to strike was not a fundamental right. It held, “though right to strike is
not raised to the high pedestal of a fundamental right, it is recognized as a mode of redress for
resolving the grievance of workers. The right to association may be extended to the right to
protest through demonstrations provided it does not disturb public order.
So, in this case the freedom of association of the workers is violated. And here the strike of
the employees was for a legitimate cause and they used it as their last weapon through which
they could express their concerns in a broader context.
Also, the concept of forced labour can be applied here. The ILO Forced Labour Convention,
1930 (No. 29) prohibits all forms of forced or compulsory labour, which is defined as "all
work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for
which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily59.
The convention also requires that the illegal extraction of forced or compulsory labour be
punishable as a penal offence, and that ratifying states ensure that the relevant penalties
imposed by law are adequate and strictly enforced60.
The convention also requires that the illegal extraction of forced or compulsory labour be
punishable as a penal offence, and that ratifying states ensure that the relevant penalties
imposed by law are adequate and strictly enforced.
Forced labour can be understood as work that is performed involuntarily and under the
menace of any penalty. It refers to situations in which persons are coerced to work through
58
AIR 1990 SC 1
59
C029 - Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
60
ibid

the use of violence or intimidation. So here in this case, it's a kind of forced labour as here the
worker's needs haven't satisfied and still, they are working.
The Abolition of Forced Labour Convention adopted by the ILO in 1957 primarily concerns
forced labour imposed by state authorities61. It prohibits specifically the use of forced labour:
• as punishment for the expression of political views,

• for the purposes of economic development,
• as a means of labour discipline,
• as a punishment for participation in strikes.
• as a means of racial, religious or other discrimination.
In addition to being a serious violation of fundamental human rights and labour rights, the
exaction of forced labour is a criminal offence.
4.1.2 UDHR on right to strike -
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 provides for the protection of workers’
interests. They have the right to form trade unions and associations62. And the right to strike
is a sequel of their constitutional privilege to form association.
If the fundamental right of an individual or a group of individuals is violated, the rest of the
society has a duty to support the fight for a remedy. Though the word 'strike' is not mentioned
anywhere in the constitution, as long as the strike remains peaceful, the society is duty bound
to support the legitimate cause.
A series of judicial decisions emphasized on the legality or the illegality of the strike, but did
not impose a ban on the right to strike.
In Management of Kairbeta Estate, Kotagiri v. Rajamanickan,63 the full bench observed

that, just as a strike is a weapon available to the employees for enforcing their individual
demands. It was also held that, strike a weapon to force the employer to accede to employees
demand and to give them the legitimate dues is a strike which is recognized under the
Industrial Disputes Act as defined in Sec 2 (q).
61
C105 - Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105)
62
Article 23(4) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,1948
63
AIR 1960 SC 893

In Bank of India v. T.S Kalewala64 the constitutional bench held that, whether the strike is
legal or justified is question of fact to be decided with the help of the evidence on record.
In Crompton Greaves Ltd v. Workmen65, the division bench held it that a strike is legal if it
does not violate any provision of the statute.
The international law clearly asks for the strike as a fundamental right of the workers. ILO,
UDHR and ICESCR have in its basic structure adopted this right.
In order to increase the membership of trade unions and associations formed in these
industries, the collective bargaining forms a vital part which even judiciary has recognized it.
But such collective bargaining is only possible if the right to strike is made as a fundamental
right under article 19(1) (c)66 .The restriction can also be attached to such as the strike to be
peaceful and legal etc.
There are still a large number of industries in India especially in the rural areas which don't
provide even minimum wages to the workers. The working environment is also in dismal
state and exploitation is the ultimate result. In these circumstances, strike becomes the
ultimate remedy to these employees.
UDHR ,1948 provides for the protection of worker’s interests. They have the right to form
trade unions and associations. And the right to strike is a sequel of these constitutional
privilege to form association.
Freedom of association is a fundamental human right proclaimed in the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights (1948) and Article 23 says that “Everyone who works has the right to just
and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of
human dignity and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection”. And
everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
And in Article 20 says that “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association. And in this particular case, the employees carried out a peaceful strike as
mentioned in article 20.
64
1990 SCR (3)214,1990 SCC (4)744
65
AIR 1978 SC 1489,1978 (36) FLR 329
66
Singh MP, V N Shukla’s Constitution of India, Eleventh Edition, Eastern Book Company

On the other hand, the punishment as said is of inhuman in nature and also Article 3 provides;
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment”.
And Article 3 says that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. So, all
these rights of the employees are violated in this particular case.
4.1.3 Under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) &
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Article 22 of the ICCPR reads as follows:
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to
form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are
prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national
security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals
or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the
imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their
exercise of this right.
3. Nothing in this article shall authorize States Parties to the International Labour
Organisation Convention of 1948 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the
Right to Organize to take legislative measures which would prejudice, or to apply the law in
such a manner as to prejudice, the guarantees provided for in that Convention.
Like all the other International Conventions, ICCPR also provides for the right to form and
join trade unions. So, in this particular case not only the fundamental rights are violated but
also the ones mentioned under the International Conventions are also violated.
Article 8 (1) (d) of the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR) provides that the States Parties to the Covenant shall undertake to ensure: "the
right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of the particular
country. Article 2 (1) of the Covenant provides: "Each State Party to the present Covenant
undertakes to take steps, ... with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the
rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the
adoption of legislative measures".

India is a signatory to the Covenant and is therefore bound under Article 2 (1) to provide for
the right to strike as enshrined in Article 8 (1) (d), through legislative measures or by other
appropriate means. While on the one hand it has to be remembered that a strike is a legitimate
and sometime unavoidable weapon in the hands of labour, it is equally important that
indiscriminate and hasty use of this weapon should not be encouraged. It will not be right for
labour to think that any kind of demand for a 'strike' can be commenced with impunity
without exhausting the reasonable avenues for peaceful achievement of the objects.
In Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak67, Justice Sawant opined: "The strike, as a weapon,
was evolved by the workers as a form of direct action during their long struggle with the
employer, it is essentially a weapon of last resort being an abnormal aspect of employer-
employee relationship and involves withdrawal of labor disrupting production, services and
the running of enterprise. It is a use by the labour of their economic power to bring the
employer to meet their viewpoint over the dispute between them. The cessation or stoppage
of works whether by the employees or by the employer is detrimental to the production and
economy and to the wellbeing of the society as a whole. It is for this reason that the industrial
legislation, while not denying for the rights of workmen to strike, has tried to regulate it along
with the rights of the employers to lockout and has also provided a machinery for peaceful
investigation, settlement arbitration and adjudication of dispute between them. The strike or
lockout is not be resorted to because the concerned party has a superior bargaining power or
the requisite economic muscle to compel the other party to accept it demands. Such
indiscriminate case of power is nothing but assertion of the rule of 'might is right'".
Thus, initially, employees must resort to dispute settlement by alternative mechanisms. Only
under extreme situations when the alternative mechanisms have totally failed to provide any
amicable settlement, can they resort to a strike as a last resort.
4.2 State of Dharmania is bound by International law
The right is an important weapon in the hands of workers for seeking redressal and
safeguarding their liberties.
There are three factors employed to determine the liability of a State. Firstly, the State must
be under a legal duty not to commit the act. Secondly, the State must commit the act. And
67
AIR 1995 SC 319

finally, the act must cause injury (loss or damage) to another entity. If these factors are
satisfied, the State is bound to make reparation to the injured parties.
So here in this particular case, the rights of the employees are violated and thus the state of
Dharmania is bound by the international law and also even the basic fundamental rights are
violated.
In the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council v. AK. Chopra68,the Supreme Court held
that international covenants such as ICESCR, etc. are like an obligation on India to be
fulfilled. It is the duty of the courts to interpret and incorporate the principles of these
covenants in their judgements. The International laws clearly ask for the strike as a
fundamental right of the workers. ILO, UDHR and ICESCR have its basic structure adopted
this right.
4.2.1 Article 51(c) of the Constitution
Article 51(c) - foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of
organized peoples with one another; and encourage settlement of international disputes by
arbitration Part IVA Fundamental Duties.
So, clause (c) refers to fostering respect for International law. So, these laws are all
enforceable in all the countries and to people all over the world and are to given due respect.
Therefore, in a large democratic society like India with a huge number of economic
transactions and well-developed industrial sector, it is very much required to bring about
policies for the welfare of people engaged as mentioned in Article 38 of the Constitution.
Article 19(1)(c) may be able to provide them the right to form association and trade unions,
but it is not enough. Sometimes, the circumstances require the workers to go one step beyond
and start strike by stopping the work to push the employer to get the demands fulfilled.
Right to strike is a statutory right in India guaranteed by Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. There are certain conditions, which only if satisfied can the workers go on to
strike. The right is an important weapon in the hands of workers for seeking redressal and
safeguarding their liberties. The international laws mandates strike to be given as a
fundamental right to workers. ILO, UDHR and ICESCR have in its basic structure adopted
68
AIR 1999 SC 625

this right. India except right to strike, has adopted almost all the principles of these
conventions. The need is to look at the industrial adjudication in India.
Collective bargaining is the essence of trade unions and associations but it is only possible if
right to strike is given the fundamental right status. Considering the dismal conditions of
industries, employer domination, minimum wage issues and social aspects of the strike, it
casts a legal and constitutional obligation on the State to made strike as a fundamental right
under Article 19(1)(c).
Therefore, in this particular case, the employees used strike as their last resort and also 95%
of the employees were in strike and it is a very clear point to be noted as there are nearly all
the employees who stood with the strike and thereby it is obviously for a legitimate cause and
thus all the above-mentioned articles and the very basic fundamental rights of the employees
are violated.

PRAYER
In the light of Arguments advanced, Authorities cited and facts enlightened, we the counsels
on behalf of Respondent humbly submit before this Hon’ble Court that:
• The Dharmania Civil Services Act, 1980 and Notification dated 25/12/2002 issued
under it by the State Government is unconstitutional and void.
• The impugned Act violates fundamental rights of employees guaranteed under Art
19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c).
• Punishment provided under the impugned Act for resorting to strike is cruel and
unusual punishment hit by protection afforded under Art. 14 and 21.
• Impugned Act interferes with the right of employees guaranteed under customary
international law
• To uphold the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Dharmania acquitting the
Respondent.
And whatever this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper with its virtue and visa of justice,
equity and good conscience.
All of which is respectfully submitted on behalf of
The Respondent
Sd/
Counsels for the Respondent
Fathim Navas (27)
Merline Mathew (41)

Group 7 - Respondent - Moot 2016 Batch

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Group 7 - Respondent - Moot 2016 Batch

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group 7 - Respondent - Moot 2016 Batch

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE:

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

APPEAL NO: _______/2021

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

STATE OF DHARMANIA (APPELLANT)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

-DRAWN AND FILED BY COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT-

APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 132 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 2

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

❖ INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND STATUTES

9. Universal Declaration of Human Rights,1948

BOOKS and COMMENTARIES

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 3

1. G. Bryan, ‘Black’s Law Dictionary’, 9th Ed., 2009, West Group

NO. NAME OF CASE CITATION

2 Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722

3 Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India 1984) 3 SCC 127

5 Apparel Export Promotion Council v. AK. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625

6 B.R. Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1

7 Bank of India v. T.S. Kalewala, 1990 SCC (4) 744

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 4

NO. NAME OF CASE CITATION

9 Bhagat Ram v. State of H. P (1983) 2 SCC 442

10 Binu v. State of Kerala 2002 CriLJ4374

13 Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India AIR 1951 SC41

14 Crompton Greaves Ltd v. Workmen, AIR 1978 SC 1489

15 Dhanji Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1965 Punj 153

17 E. P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 555

18 Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi 1981 SCR (2) 516

19 Gujarat Steel Tubes v. Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1980 SC 1896

20 In Re: Delhi Laws Act AIR 1951 SC 332

22 K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of T.N 1996 SCC (2) 226

23 Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1952 SC 252

24 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

27 M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, 1979 SCR (3) 254

28 Management of Kairbeta Estate, Kotagiri v. Rajamanickam, 1960 SCR (3) 371

29 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597

30 Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771

31 Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration, 1980 AIR 1535

32 R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority, 1979 SCR (3)1014

33 Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 2386

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 5

34 Saurabh Chaudhari v Union Of India, AIR 2004 SC 2212

35 Sharma Transport v. Government of A. P (2002) 2 SCC 188.

36 Syndicate Bank v. Umesh Nayak, AIR 1995 SC 319

AIR All India Reporter

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 6

ALL OF WHICH HUMBLY IS SUBMITTED:

Counsel for the respondent.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 7

4. On receiving strike notice the government of Dharmania issued the following

Government of Dharmania Department of Home Affairs

Notification No. S.R.O. 2019/2002 dated 25/12/2002

Secretary to the Government

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 8

5. However strike commenced as per notice on 1/1/2003, a very large percentage of