Madras High Court Restraints TANGEDCO Employees From Going On Strike, Says Essential Services Will Be Affected

The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained the employees of the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) from going on a strike on January 10 or on any future date. 

While allowing the petition filed by one J Elumalai, the bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that since electricity is an essential service, if the employees went on strike, it would affect the public at large. Thus, the court restrained the employees from going on a strike.

If doctors strike, the hospitals will come to standstill. Similarly the employees in the electricity department are important as the entire place would be affected if they go on strike. Hospitals, schools etc which are essential will not be able to work and would come to a standstill, the court noted while agreeing with the petitioners

The petitioner submitted that as per settled position of law, a Government employee did not have the legal or statutory right to go on strike. Moreover, the petitioner added that with the increased dependency on electricity, a strike by the employees would end up paralysing the society.

According to the petitioner, electricity supply was an important factor in achieving socio economic rights and achieving constitutional goals with sustainable development. The petitioner also drew attention of the court to the financial crunch that was being faced by the electricity department. Thus, it was pleaded that the employees and the unions look into the situation and think about the public at large. 

The official respondents also submitted that the strike was illegal as per Section 22(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. It was also submitted that whenever there is a conflict between a public interest and a private interest, the public interest should prevail. In such circumstances, the official respondents also sought for an interim injunction on the strike.

The court agreed with these submissions and found that an interim injunction would be just. 

Case Title: A Saravanan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 11

Case No: WP 646 of 2023