1. By this Public Interest Litigation petition, the Petitioner, Patna District Bar Association through its General Secretary, Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, District Court, Patna and one Sri Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate, Secretary, P.U.C.L., Bihar, have approached this Court for taking appropriate action against the strikers of the subordinate Civil Courts, represented by the Respondent No. 4, the Non-gazetted Employees Association, Bihar, Patna, and also prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions against the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 i.e. the State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, the Labour Secretary and the Labour Commissioner respectively, for making suitable arrangement for the proper functioning of the courts etc.
2. It is contended that became of the strike of the employees of the subordinate judiciary, total working of the Courts is paralyzed and even the bail applications u/s 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not being disposed of causing great hardships to the accused persons and without any fault on their part they are being put behind the bar.
3. The petition is arguable.
4. Appearance on behalf of Respondents has been made through the Advocate General.
5. No doubt, employees as a whole, are the back-bone of any organization and unfair practice in respect of the employees can not be allowed to be exercised so as to throttle their legitimate demands permissible within the purview of the rules and regulations by which the services of the employees are governed. Nonetheless for the fulfillment of their demands, the employees can not be permitted to resort to illegal means, which is not only contrary to law but also results in hardships to the general public at large (litigants) giving threats to the public tranquility. Remaining on strike on the slightest pretext or provocation appears to be the prevalent practice and the unfortunate part is that the same is being tolerated and that is why the law and order as also public tranquility has become victim of it.
6. At this juncture we are reminded of the common saying "EGYARAH BAJE TAK LATE NAHI AUR TIN BAJE KE BAD BHEIT NAHI". Thus one can understand the plight of the general public where total amount of work in almost all the offices is hardly for four hours in a day including luncheon recess and that is the reason that for a small work not only days and months are consumed but years together are consumed. This can be manifested by showing the files pending in the different offices at all levels and the kind of defence they take in defending themselves that the delay is being caused at the lowest level in the hierarchy in dealing with the relevant files.
7. With this background, if this P.I.L. petition is taken into consideration, it is astonishing how the employees of the Civil Courts have misled themselves in joining hands with the seasoned strikers against the statutory provisions of Rule 8 of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which specifically prohibits strike or demonstration by a Government servant.
8. For the sake of brevity, Rule 8 of the rules are quoted herein below in extent:
8. Demonstration and Strikes,- No Government Servant shall-
(i) engage himself or participate in any demonstration which is prejudicial to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign State, Public order, decency or morality, which involves contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence, or
(ii) resort to or in any way abet any form of strike or coercion or physical duress in connection with any matter pertaining to his service or the service of any other Government Servant.
9. In this regard, it is needless to say that under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, it is the High Court, which is having control over the subordinate judiciary and so this sort of apathy on the part of the Civil Courts strikers in the State of Bihar can not be tolerated at the cost of sufferings of the litigants.
10. Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 8 of the Rules, quoted above, in unequivocal terms prohibits a Government servant from resorting to or in any way abetting any form of strike or coercion or physical duress in connection with any matter pertaining to his service or even for the service of any other Government servant. Besides this, for such violation of Rule 8, which results in misconduct, individual or collective enquiry is also not feasible. This is what the Supreme Court has held in the case of
11. This being the law of the land, it is expected of the Civil Courts employees, who are in touch with the legal proceedings, to be acquainted with the settled laws as held in Tulsi Ram Patel case (supra).
12. Therefore, realizing the gravity of the situation, it will be in their interest not to invite any action against them rather on the other hand keeping in view the responsibility and the importance of their work, they should join the duty forthwith.
13. Put up this case on 11.2.99 under the same heading.
14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Bihar Civil Court Employees Association and to the Non gazette Employees Association, Bihar, Patna. It is expected of them to give positive response to this order.
Order dated 11.2.1999
15. I.A. No. 1809 of 1999 is an application for intervention filed on behalf of Bihar State Civil Courts Employees Association.
16. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Y.V. Giri appearing for the intervenes states that the employees are ready to call off the strike. The main grievance of the employees is that the judgment passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5156 of 1994 has not been respected and complied with by the State Government not with standing the filing of the contempt petition, the same may be taken into consideration.
17. The provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are designed to enforce the rule of law but not to pass any order contrary to law. Rule 8 of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976, emphasizes that the Govt. employees should not take part in strike. Realizing the legal position, learned Counsel states that the Association has decided to call off the strike in view of Rule 8 aforesaid and particularly the order passed by this Court on 8.2.1999 but further states that in the garb of calling off the strike the employees may not be a victim of the strike. Here at this stage question of victimization does not arise. If law protects them, full protection under the law will be granted to all concerned.
18. Since a statement has been made for calling off the strike, put up this case on Monday.
19. Copy of this order be given to all the parties concerned.
