T.K.

Rangarajan vs Government of Tamil Nadu & Others, AIR 2003 SC 3032;

2003 (6) SCC 581

Facts of the Case

1. Parties:
- Petitioner: T.K. Rangarajan
- Respondent: Government of Tamil Nadu and others

2. Background:
- Tamil Nadu government employees went on strike to press for their demands.
- The Tamil Nadu Government responded by terminating the services of all striking employees.

3. Legal Challenge:
- The terminated employees filed writ petitions in the High Court of Madras, challenging their dismissal and
the validity of the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002, and Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 3 of
2003.
- A Single Judge of the High Court issued an interim order to halt the suspension and dismissal of employees
without inquiry.

4. High Court Appeal:

- The State Government appealed the interim order, and the Division Bench of the High Court set it aside,
stating the writ petitions were not maintainable without first approaching the Administrative Tribunal.

5. Supreme Court Intervention:

- The Supreme Court took up the case and reiterated the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution to address unprecedented situations.
- The Court held that government employees do not have a fundamental, statutory, or equitable/moral right to
strike, citing previous rulings.

6. Resolution:
- The Supreme Court suggested the reinstatement of dismissed employees, which the State Government
agreed to, with conditions of unconditional apology and adherence to Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Government
Servants Conduct Rules, 1973.
- Reinstatement did not apply to those involved in violence or against whom FIRs were lodged.
- A committee of retired High Court judges was established to review the cases of employees who were not
reinstated.

Issues

1.Whether government employees have a fundamental, statutory, or equitable/moral right to strike.

2.Whether the High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to
address the mass dismissal of employees without requiring them to first approach the Administrative Tribunal.
3.Whether the dismissal of employees without conducting any inquiry violates principles of natural justice and
procedural fairness.

Holding

The Supreme Court held that government employees do not have a fundamental, statutory, or equitable/moral
right to strike. It emphasized that the High Court has the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to
address exceptional and unprecedented situations, such as the mass dismissal of employees, without
necessitating the prior exhaustion of remedies before the Administrative Tribunal. The Court further directed
the reinstatement of the dismissed employees, subject to their submission of an unconditional apology and an
undertaking to adhere to Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. The Court
recognized the exceptional nature of the case and acknowledged the State Government's willingness to reinstate
the majority of the employees, while also establishing a committee of retired High Court judges to review the
cases of those not reinstated.

Procedural History

1.Strike and Dismissal: Tamil Nadu government employees went on strike, leading to their mass dismissal by
the state government.
2.Writ Petitions: The dismissed employees filed writ petitions in the High Court of Madras challenging their
dismissal and the validity of the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002.
3.High Court Interim Order: A Single Judge issued an interim order halting the dismissals without inquiry.
4.State’s Appeal: The State Government appealed, and the Division Bench set aside the interim order, citing
the need to first approach the Administrative Tribunal.
5.Supreme Court Appeal: Employees appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that the High Court could
exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in exceptional cases and directed reinstatement of employees with
conditions.
6.Final Decision: The Supreme Court directed reinstatement of most employees and set up a committee of
retired judges to review remaining cases, concluding the appeals and writ petitions.

Rationale

The Supreme Court held that government employees do not have a fundamental, statutory, or equitable/moral
right to strike, as such actions can significantly disrupt public services. The Court affirmed the High Court's
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to address exceptional situations like the mass dismissal of
employees. Recognizing the immediate and severe impact on the employees, the Court justified the High
Court's intervention due to the Administrative Tribunal's inability to handle the volume of cases. The decision
aimed to maintain public order while ensuring fair treatment of the dismissed employees.

Dicta
The Supreme Court emphasized that government employees do not have a fundamental right to strike, as it
disrupts essential public services. It highlighted the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226,
which should be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances to prevent gross injustice. The Court urged
government employees to use lawful means to address grievances, noting that strikes cause widespread societal
harm. It also pointed out the inadequacy of Administrative Tribunals to handle the mass dismissal, justifying the
need for direct judicial intervention.

Parties arguments

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner, T.K. Rangarajan, argued that the mass dismissal of employees without conducting any inquiry
was unlawful and violated principles of natural justice. He contended that government employees had a right to
strike to press for their demands, and such punitive measures were disproportionate. Furthermore, the petitioner
maintained that the High Court was justified in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to
address this unprecedented situation. Additionally, he challenged the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu
Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002, and Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 3 of 2003, under which the
dismissals were carried out, arguing that these legislations infringed upon the employees' rights.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent, Government of Tamil Nadu, argued that the strike by government employees severely
disrupted public services and maintaining public order justified the mass dismissal. The government asserted
that there is no fundamental, statutory, or equitable right for government employees to strike, especially when it
causes significant public inconvenience and harm. The State contended that the dismissed employees should
have first approached the Administrative Tribunal, as per the established legal procedure, rather than directly
filing writ petitions in the High Court. Furthermore, the respondent emphasized that disciplinary measures,
including dismissals, were necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of essential services and to prevent future
occurrences of such disruptive actions.

Judgement

The Supreme Court ruled that government employees do not have a right to strike. It upheld the High Court's
use of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to address the mass dismissal of employees without
requiring them to first approach the Administrative Tribunal. The Court directed the reinstatement of most
dismissed employees, subject to an unconditional apology and adherence to conduct rules. A committee of
retired judges was established to review cases of employees not reinstated. The appeals and writ petitions were
disposed of, with no order as to costs.

Submitted by - Gurjot Singh

Group 7
20 July 2024