Trade Union Rights And Criminal Protections
Trade unions are organizations formed by workers to protect and promote their collective interests. Most jurisdictions—including India, the UK, and other common-law systems—give unions certain rights and immunities so workers can organize without fear of retaliation or criminal liability.
Under Indian law, the principal legislation is the Trade Unions Act, 1926, supported by labour codes and constitutional guarantees such as:
Article 19(1)(c) – Right to form associations and unions
Article 19(4) – Reasonable restrictions for public order, morality, security of the State
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Provides protections during strikes, lockouts, unfair labour practices
Criminal laws that interact include the IPC, CrPC, and doctrines of criminal immunity for lawful union activities.
KEY RIGHTS OF TRADE UNIONS
1. Right to Registration
Registered unions receive:
Legal identity
Perpetual succession
Power to sue and be sued
Immunities from certain civil and criminal liabilities
2. Right to Collective Bargaining
Unions can negotiate:
Wages
Working conditions
Social security
Grievance redressal
3. Right to Strike (Limited Right)
Not a fundamental right in India, but a legal right when properly exercised.
4. Criminal Protections / Immunities
Under Sections 17 & 18 of the Trade Unions Act:
Immunity from criminal conspiracy charges for agreements made in furtherance of legitimate union objectives.
Immunity from certain civil suits, e.g., inducement to breach of contract, if done for lawful trade disputes.
No immunity for violence, intimidation, coercion, wrongful restraint, or property damage.
⭐ IMPORTANT CASE LAWS (DETAILED)
1. All India Bank Employees’ Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (1962)
Essence of the Case
The Supreme Court clarified the relationship between Article 19(1)(c) (right to form unions) and trade union activities.
Key Findings
Article 19(1)(c) protects the right to form a union, but does not guarantee effectiveness or success of a union (e.g., compulsory recognition).
The State may impose reasonable restrictions under Article 19(4) in public interest.
Activities such as strikes, demonstrations, picketing do not automatically fall under Article 19(1)(c); they may fall under other rights or statutory protections.
Impact
The case clearly separated:
Right to form unions (fundamental right)
Right to collective bargaining/strike (not a fundamental right)
2. Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1962)
Essence
The issue was whether government employees have the right to strike or participate in demonstrations.
Key Findings
Peaceful demonstrations are protected by Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b).
However, strike is not a fundamental right.
Government employees can be prohibited from striking in the interest of maintaining essential services.
Impact
It protected peaceful forms of protest while confirming that no class of citizens has a fundamental right to strike.
3. B.R. Singh v. Union of India (1990)
Essence
Railway employees’ unions sought recognition and the right to collective bargaining.
Key Findings
Collective bargaining is an essential element of trade unionism.
Even though striking is not a fundamental right, workers’ voice cannot be suppressed.
Government must engage in fair negotiations with unions.
Impact
The case strengthened the principle that unions must be treated as legitimate stakeholders, especially in large public institutions.
4. Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union (1976)
Essence
The case dealt with whether damages for an illegal strike can be claimed from a union.
Key Findings
Workers and unions are not immune from civil liability when they commit tortious acts (e.g., violence, intimidation, property damage).
However, peaceful strikes within the framework of labour law cannot attract civil suit for damages.
Courts must distinguish between illegal strikes and peaceful industrial action.
Impact
Reinforced that:
Immunity is not absolute
Violent or illegal activities are punishable
5. TK Rangarajan v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2003)
Essence
Mass dismissal of government employees in Tamil Nadu after they went on strike.
Key Findings
Government employees have no fundamental, statutory, or moral right to strike.
State can take strict action to maintain essential services during strikes.
Dismissal of striking employees was held valid.
Impact
This is one of the strongest rulings limiting the right to strike in India, especially for government staff.
6. Bharat Kumar v. State of Kerala (1997)
Essence
Concerned the legality of bandhs called by political or trade organizations.
Key Findings
A bandh is not the same as a strike.
Bandhs violate citizens’ fundamental rights (movement, trade, liberty).
Organizers are liable for damages caused during bandhs.
Impact
Severely limited the right of unions to enforce mass shutdowns that affect the general public.
7. O.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph (1963)
Essence
Whether government rules restricting union activities were constitutional.
Key Findings
Unreasonable restrictions on participation in trade union activities violate Article 19(1)(c).
Government cannot suppress union activities without strong justification.
Impact
Strengthened constitutional protection for union membership and internal union functions.
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES FROM CASE LAW
| Area | Principle |
|---|---|
| Right to form unions | A fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c); cannot be unreasonably restricted. |
| Right to strike | Not a fundamental right; may be regulated and restricted. |
| Collective bargaining | An essential union activity protected by statutory and constitutional doctrines. |
| Criminal protections | Immunity available only for peaceful, lawful union actions—not for violence, coercion, or public disorder. |
| Public employee restrictions | Government staff have the most restrictions, especially in essential services. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments