I. THE RIGHT OF LAWYERS TO GO ON STRIKE
This section will analyze the issue of whether lawyers have a right to strike. The legal position with respect to the right of lawyers seems clear after the cases of Harish Uppal and even Common Cause : lawyers have no right to strike. In this part, a review of case law will help articulate the legal position with respect to strikes by lawyers.
In Harish Uppal v. Union of India, the Court stipulated that:
“[…] lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike.
The Court went on to say that if a protest is required, it can only be done by issuing statements in the press, television interviews, wearing coloured arm bands, carrying banners, placards, peaceful gatherings, fasts, etc. outside the court premises. It said that lawyers holding vakalats “cannot refuse to attend Courts in pursuance to a call for strike or boycott.” If such lawyers do not attend court proceedings, then they would be personally liable to pay costs and even damages to his client. It urged lawyers to “boldly refuse” any invitation to strike. Further, it held that the Bar Association or Council cannot allow any meeting for deliberating a call for boycott. The Association cannot compel or threaten lawyers to join the strike and cannot impose any penalties on a lawyer refusing to participate in a strike. It stated that Courts had a duty to proceed with the matters before them and had absolutely no compulsion to adjourn these matters because lawyers are on strike.
In Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd., the Court while upholding the judicial process stated that:
“Judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be stonewalled by browbeating or bullying...
... middle of paper ...
...or national lawyer strike because of police-lawyer violence”, Legally India, March 08, 2013. Available at: http://www.legallyindia.com/201303083501/Bar-Bench-Litigation/bci-calls-for-national-lawyer-strike-because-of-police-lawyer-violence
18. Prachi Shrivastava, “Orissa, Madras lawyers on double hunger strike ‘unto death’ over bench, language, as Mumbai strikes ‘successful’.”, February 06 2014. Available at: http://www.legallyindia.com/201402064319/Bar-Bench-Litigation/orissa-madras-double-hunger-strike
19. Abhinav Garg, “Lawyers strike to bail themselves out”, The Times of India, January 08, 2009. Available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Lawyers-strike-to-bail-themselves-out/articleshow/3949016.cms
Reports:
Law Commission of India - One hundred and thirty first report. Available at: http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/101-169/Report131.pdf
SEKHAR v. UNITED STATES. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14 May 2014. .
Riccardi, Michael (1998) “Dennis: Get Rid Of Challenges Without Cause” The Legal Intelligencer, Oct. 14: pg 1.
In the case Lechmere, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 502 U.S. 527 (1992), Lechmere was a large retail store located in a plaza that also contained several smaller satellite stores. In this case the union filed an unfair labor practice against Lechmere for violating Section 7 of the NLRA for not allowing its non-employee organizers to distribute literature on the companies parking lot. There was not sufficient area for on public property for these organizers to be able to speak with employees. In this case the NLRB ruled in favor of the union stating that “The right to distribute is not absolute, but must be accommodated to the circumstances, where it is impossible or unreasonably difficult for a union to distribute organizational literature to employees entirely off the employer’s premises, distribution on a nonworking area, such as the parking lot and the walkways between the parking lot and the gate, may be warranted.”
Since the 1990s the Supreme Court of India, bizarrely somersaulted the entire labor jurisprudence by introducing structural adjustment and disregarding workers rights. In T.K Rangarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu , in this per Incuriam decision the Supreme Court took away the right to strike from government employees, thus snatching the most powerful weapon of collective bargaining. Previously, labor jurisprudence of the Supreme Court was oriented towards protecting the rights of workers, and had held that right to collective bargaining is guaranteed to government employees. (Bangalore Water Supply v.
It has been said that we are living in a democratic country where we are free to do as we wish but there are certain things that you can arrested for if you do, like speaking against the PM or walking naked in the streets. Even if they say that we are free, we are still somewhat in bondage by social order. In this case the court acts as the “Me” and the individual as the “I.” The “Me” is the one responsible to keep the “I” in
Firefighters put out fires and save people from aflame properties or crumbling buildings, police officers enforce the law and put the individuals who break the law in prison to help make the streets safer, teacher’s educate schoolhouse children of all ages and care and mold them into becoming well-rounded citizens ready to enter society and offer their skills, doctors, nurses, and hospital staff cure and treat the sick, one thing they all have in common is that they all serve the public and yet they are not allowed to strike when things within their place of work are not proper.
Mr Justice Wilson, ‘Lectures on Advocacy and Ethics in the Supreme Court’ (1979) 15 Legal Research Foundation Inc.
In conclusion, laws should not be followed if one disagrees with them or believes they do not make justice. We should have the right to speak out for what we want. If one does not agree ith something, they should be able to keep
Marshall, Burke . "The Protest Movement and the Law." Virginia Law Review 51.5 (1965): 785-
Kemper, Bob. “Right to Counsel: Landmark Decision Falls Short of Promise” nacdl.org. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, n.p. web. Sept. 2009.
Rajagopal, Krishnadas. "Nagarwala Case: Mystery Returns after Three Decades." - Indian Express. N.p., 21 Dec. 2008. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.
The High Court focused primarily on the nature of the employment relationship between Vabu Pty Ltd and its cour...
The defendant is an Airlines Company that had 900 employees. The economic crisis followed with monetary crisis gave bad effects to the defendant. They should decrease the number of their airplanes form 9 to 2 airplanes. They also had to do the efficiency on their employees to 700. On the efficiency process, there was an agreement between the defendant and employees representation on October 30 1998. The agreement stated that they would bring Independent Public Accountant to analyze company financial condition. During the process, all side should work on their duty. The Defendant should pay employees’ wage. The agreement was not guarantee that didn’t mean the dispute process was over, but the negotiation still moved on. During the process, there was another agreement between the defendant and several employees. They agreed the finish the disputed process and the employees would get separation pay. Meanwhile, other employees, who were 153 people didn’t agree with that agreement. Because they didn’t agree each other, so the employees gave the case to the “Panitia Penyelesaian Perselisihan Perburuhan Pusat (P4P)”.
Wages and benefits are the key motivation that people go to their jobs every day; besides their hourly wage or annual salary, majority of employees have access to employer-sponsored health care coverage, paid vacation, and other benefits (Findlaw.com, n.d.). So, when it comes to negotiations, wage disputes are by far the most prominent causes of strikes when labor unions and employers reach a stalemate during these talks (Sloane & Witney, 2010). Over the past decade, wage-related issues have accounted for approximately 40 percent of all such work stoppages (Gorman, 2004). Since employee wages are normally their only source of income, we can see why they play such a significant and contentious part in labor unions and management relationships (Gorman, 2004). That is why basic wage rate, overtime, differentials, and adjustments are the most significant issue...
Additionally, Strikes held by workers in fundamental administrations will be viewed as illicit strike and Procedure for holding strike. Educators or school must take after exchange union, agents of workers ought to give 3 weeks earlier notice and the date of holding strike, and ought to be set purposes behind holding strike and requests of representatives, and a duplicate of notice must be issued to MOM and important government powers. As per Omani work law the strike will be an illicit if the way toward holding the strike is not took after recommended under RD 35/2003 and Ministerial Decision 294/2006 (the "MD") changed by 575/2013. Be that as it may, strike ought to be quickly cancelled when gatherings start settlement