Labour Rights and State Authority.

Chhattisgarh Terminates NHM Employees for Strike Participation - A Test Case for Labour Rights and State Authority.

The Chhattisgarh government recently terminated the services of 25 employees under the National Health Mission (NHM) for continuing an indefinite strike despite repeated notices to return to work. The move, justified by the administration under the “no work, no pay” policy, has stirred debate around labour rights, essential services, and the limits of collective bargaining in India’s public healthcare sector.

Background of the Dispute

• The NHM employees in Chhattisgarh, including contractual health workers and support staff, went on strike pressing demands for better pay scales, regularisation of services, and improved working conditions.
• The government partially accepted some of the demands but ordered employees to return to duty, citing the essential nature of healthcare services.
• When several employees continued to defy the order, 25 staff members were terminated, with the government warning of further action against non-compliance.

Legal Framework Involved

1. Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA):

Healthcare is treated as an essential service, where strikes can be restricted to ensure the uninterrupted delivery of public services.

2. No Work, No Pay Principle:

Recognised in Indian labour jurisprudence, this principle allows employers (including the state) to withhold wages if employees abstain from work without authorisation.

3. Contractual Employment Issues:

Most NHM staff are employed on a contractual basis. Unlike permanent government employees, they lack strong protections under service rules, making them more vulnerable to termination.

Government’s Justification

The Chhattisgarh government defended its decision on three primary grounds:

• Continuity of Essential Services: Public health facilities cannot afford disruptions, especially in rural areas where NHM staff form the backbone of service delivery.
• Partial Acceptance of Demands: Officials argued that, since some demands had already been met, continued strike action was unjustified.
• Administrative Discipline: Allowing prolonged defiance would set a precedent for other contractual or essential service employees.

Concerns Raised by Workers and Unions

Trade unions and employee associations have strongly criticised the government’s action:

• Suppression of Collective Bargaining: Termination, rather than dialogue, signals a punitive approach to legitimate worker grievances.
• Job Insecurity: Contractual workers already face precarious conditions; termination without due process deepens insecurity.
• Workers’ Rights vs. Public Interest: While ensuring healthcare delivery is crucial, workers argue that their long-standing demands for fair wages and regularisation cannot be ignored indefinitely.

Broader Implications for Labour and Employment Law

1. Strikes in Essential Services: The case underscores the tension between workers’ right to protest and the state’s duty to maintain uninterrupted essential services.

2. Need for a Balanced Framework: Labour law reforms must balance workers’ rights to collective action with citizens’ rights to essential services.

3. Contractualisation Debate: The heavy reliance on contractual workers in critical sectors like healthcare raises questions about job security and fair labour standards.

The Road Ahead

For Chhattisgarh and other states, this episode offers critical lessons:

• Dialogue Mechanisms: Establishing structured negotiation platforms between the government and contractual workers could help prevent such confrontations.
• Policy Reforms: Long-term reforms must address issues of regularisation, fair pay, and job security for NHM staff.
• Judicial Intervention: The terminated employees may approach labour courts or high courts, potentially setting legal precedents on the treatment of contractual staff in essential services.