The non-availability of express recognition in relation to the right to strike necessarily provides room for vague and ambiguous interpretations by authorities and the judiciary, the legal academia outlined.
It is a well known fact that both Sri Lanka and India lacks the express recognition to the right to engage in strike.
Addressing current issues pertaining to employment law from a Sri Lanka perspective, Lecturer (Probationary) at the Faculty of Law of the General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University, Attorney-at-Law Namudi Kaushani Mudalige added that moreover such could expressly limit and control unfair industrial actions by the employees if the right under consideration is expressive under the law.
“The right to strike can be defined as the most powerful tool of bargaining and winning, on the part of employees. Yet the actual legal basis of this right should be sought in the light of international, regional and domestic legal frameworks and international labour standards,” she said.
She added that the reason for not expressly setting out the right under consideration by the International Labour Organization through its conventions or recommendations is doubtful. “One has to discuss sub aspects such as the justifiable nature of a strike, the legal basis of a strike, the right to form and join a trade union or trade unions, and the right to strike as an implied right,” she mentioned.
There is also a need to look at legislative developments in the fundamental rights and responsibilities of employers and the fundamental rights and responsibilities of employees and the impact of multinational trade agreements on national work forces and immigration regimes.