RADHEY SHYAM SHARMA versus THE POST MASTER GENERAL CENTRAL CIRCLE NAGPUR

RADHEY SHYAM SHARMA versus THE POST MASTER GENERAL CENTRAL CIRCLE NAGPUR

Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1960, do not violate the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) since there is no fundamental right to strike. The disciplinary action against the petitioner for acting in furtherance of an illegal strike does not violate these fundamental rights. The authorities' finding of misconduct is supported by evidence on record.

Parties
Petitioner: Radhey Shyam Sharma; Respondent: The Post Master General Central Circle, Nagpur
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 March 1964
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Final Decision on Merits
Outcome
Petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Fundamental Rights—articles 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(b), Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance—constitutionality, Right to Strike, Disciplinary Proceedings Against Government Employees
Constitutional Law Service Law Fundamental Rights—articles 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(b) Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance—constitutionality Right to Strike Disciplinary Proceedings Against Government Employees

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Radhey Shyam Sharma

Petitioner

The Post Master General Central Circle, Nagpur

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Final Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ss. 3, 4, and 5 of the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1960, violate the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India.
  2. 2 Whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b).
  3. 3 Whether there was evidence to support the disciplinary finding against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1960, do not violate the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) since there is no fundamental right to strike. The disciplinary action against the petitioner for acting in furtherance of an illegal strike does not violate these fundamental rights. The authorities' finding of misconduct is supported by evidence on record.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed.