The Madras High Court on Wednesday succeeded in persuading the State transport corporation trade unions to suspend the bus strike till January 19, in the interest of the people dependent on public transport for travel during the Pongal season.
Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy recorded the submissions made by Senior Counsel Vijay Narayan, representing Anna Thozhirsanga Peravai, and advocate Balan Haridas, representing the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), that their members shall return to work in the public interest.
When Mr. Haridas apprehended that the transport corporations might end up taking departmental action against those who had resorted to the strike, pressing various demands, Additional Advocate-General (AAG) J. Ravindran said there need not be any such fear, and that the employees would be allowed to resume work immediately.
The judges recorded the AAG’s submission, too, while disposing of a public interest litigation petition filed by S. Paul Kithiyon, a 25-year-old pharmacology student from Chennai. Senior Counsel P.R. Raman, representing the litigant, urged the court to declare the strike illegal because commuters were being put to inconvenience since Tuesday.
On his part, the AAG told the court that the trade unions could have waited till the next conciliatory talks involving the Labour Commissioner on January 19, with respect to issues such as wage revision, filling of vacancies and so on, rather than having resorted to a strike just before the Pongal festival.
As far as the demand for a revision of the dearness allowance to around 92,000 pensioners was concerned, he said that the issue was pending before the Supreme Court, which was scheduled to hear the matter on February 6. He urged the court to declare the strike illegal, as sought by the litigant.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice said that Pongal was the most important festival of the State. Therefore, he asked the State as well as the trade unions to arrive at an amicable solution, considering the plight of the general public, and not hold them to ransom. But both sides refused to budge.
While the AAG responded with a firm “no” to a suggestion from the Bench on the State paying ₹2,000 each to around 92,000 pensioners without prejudice to its rights, the trade unions also said they would not be willing to suspend the strike unless the government addresses their demands.
It was only after the Chief Justice began pronouncing orders and commented on the “adamant” attitude of both sides that the counsel for the trade unions came forward to give an undertaking that their members would suspend the strike till January 19 and return to work in the public interest.
