Dear All,
The following appeared in "Times of India", Mumbai Edition on February 17,2009, page no. 01.
May be useful for future references.
In other words, the SC has agreed that people can suffer due to "STRIKE", since it is perfectly legal and not illegal. Surprisingly the SC did not clearly define "Strike" vis-a-vis a "Bandh" or "Hartal" nor did the SC consider it fit to direct the Judiciary Panel to lay down guidelines on the issue under context, for the benefit of the people, whose right of peace, the SC is bound to protect.
WONDER, if "HARTAL" is the Hindi equivalent of "STRIKE".
Further it will be a wonder, what effect the STRIKES will have, when the office workers/staff of Govt./Private offices go on sudden Strike and its repurcussions relating to the Industrial Dispute Act.
Further also a Striking staff can now easily claim Mediclaim and benefits under the ESIC Act, when he suffers physical body damage, since technically the worker would still be on official duty when on strike.
That's what it means by saying "LAW is an ASS", since the ASS defies all human instructions to follow the logical path.
Keep Smiling ... HemantAgarwal
Strikes quite different from bandhs: SC
New Delhi: The apex court has refused to equate ‘strike’ calls given by political parties and labour unions with ‘bandhs’ and ‘hartals’ which have been banned since 1997.
“Strikes are not prohibited under any law or court order,’’ a bench of CJI K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam said, refusing to entertain a PIL which said strikes, bandhs and hartals had the same effect on people.
The SC also took potshots at the media’s reporting of its observation during the last hearing of the PIL seeking a ban on a strike call given by a group sympathising with Tamils in Lanka. When counsel A Pudussery repeated his February 3 argument that the bandh call would breach the SC’s earlier order, the bench chided him and said, “Why did you go to the press, which even wrote editorials?’’ TNN
