SECTION 62 OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CODE, 2020 AND THE EROSION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AUTHOR – TAURAI SAHA, STUDENT AT NALSAR UNIVERSITY OF LAW, HYDERABAD
BEST CITATION – TAURAI SAHA, SECTION 62 OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CODE, 2020 AND THE EROSION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (10) OF 2026, PG. 217-223, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I1029
Abstract
The right to strike currently holds an unstable position in Indian labour law. Courts have declined to recognise it as a fundamental right, yet successive legislative frameworks have preserved it as a statutory entitlement, subject to procedural conditions.[1] The consolidation of twenty-nine central labour statutes into four Labour Codes between 2019 and 2020 presented Parliament with an opportunity to rationalise this framework. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (hereinafter “the Code” or “IRC”), however, has moved in the opposite direction in one critical respect. Section 62 universalises the pre-strike notice requirement that was previously confined to Public Utility Services under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter “IDA”). When read alongside the automatic initiation of conciliation proceedings triggered by that notice, and the prohibition on striking during those proceedings, Section 62 creates what this paper terms a “Notice-Conciliation Trap.” This trap renders the right to strike procedurally illusory for workers in all industrial establishments.
This paper pursues three related objectives. First, it situates Section 62 within the historical development of Indian strike law by comparing it against the IDA’s regime. Second, it measures Section 62 against the normative principle of collective bargaining; that workers must possess credible coercive capacity to negotiate on equal terms with employers. Third, it draws a comparative analysis with South Africa’s Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (hereinafter “LRA”), which similarly regulates strikes through notice and conciliation but does so in a manner that preserves rather than extinguishes the right. The paper also addresses the controversy surrounding the expanded definition of “strike” under Section 2(zk) of the Code and concludes with a proposal for legislative reform.
[1] All India Bank Employees’ Association v National Industrial Tribunal AIR 1962 SC 171; B R Singh v Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 710.