"Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains."-Karl Marx

Let us first begin with basic definitions
According to the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Section 2(q) of said Act defines the term strike, it says, "strike" means a cassation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination, or a concerted refusal, or a refusal, under a common understanding of any number of persons who are or have been so employed to continue to work or accept employment.

Typically, a strike is a response to employee complaints. During the Industrial Revolution, when mass labour became crucial in factories and mines, strikes increased in frequency. As strike activity increased, governments were frequently pressured to take action (either by private business or by union workers). Government action is rarely impartial or cooperative.

Early strikes were frequently labelled as illegal conspiracies or anti-competitive cartel activity, and many of them were the targets of harsh legal repression by state police, federal military force, and federal courts. In the late 19th and early 20th century, several Western countries made striking acceptable under specific circumstances.

Sometimes governments are compelled to modify their policies by means of strikes. Sometimes, strikes undermine a specific political party's or ruler's authority; in these situations, strikes are frequently a component of a larger social movement taking the shape of a campaign of civil resistance.

Strikes can occur for a variety of reasons, although they typically do so in reaction to poor economic conditions (this is what is meant by an economic strike, which aims to raise pay and benefits) or unfair labour laws (intended to improve work conditions). Other strikes may be the result of solidarity with other striking unions or disagreements over jurisdiction between two unions. Sit-down strikes, wildcat strikes, and partial strikes are all considered illegal strikes (such as slowdowns or sick-ins). Additionally, strikes may be called for solely political motives (as in the general strike).

Strikes are among the most widely used, commonly discussed, well-known and well-documented phenomenon in the professional/industrial world. They are attracting increasing and widespread interest due to their political, social and economic implications. Both concepts have boomed in popularity ever since the advent of the Industrial revolution, and have subsequently left their mark on history, be it communist revolutions or evolutions in labour law.

With a rise in general awareness of rights and laws, we can see that within the next few years, both concepts destined to become an important component in the working world. However, few researchers have addressed the problem of comparative historical analysis of strikes law in India and other countries. This is bad in my opinion, as in order to draft progressive labor laws, one needs to look back into history and see the evolution of the law.

As was said by the famous English writer and philosopher Aldous Huxley "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." This paper presents a new approach to the study of both the concepts in which they are presented, described, analyzed, investigated and discussed with special regards to France in order fulfill the aim of our work, which is to further broaden current knowledge of strikes law.

Before I begin the crux of my paper, I would like to point out that this is a history dense paper. And since there is a word limit, I will try to condense the information as much as possible.

Evolution of strikes law in France
Here is a brief summary of the background of Industry in in France 4:

• Since its Revolution in the late 18th century, France's economic history has been shaped by three significant periods and trends: the Napoleonic Era, the rivalry with Britain and its other neighbours for "industrialization," and the "total wars" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
   
• In 1815, the majority of France's economy consisted of small-scale farming and handicrafts. There was minimal industry in Paris and the other, much smaller metropolitan areas. The GDP per capita of France was lower at the start of the nineteenth century than that of Great Britain and the Netherlands. This was most likely a result of increasing transaction costs, which were primarily brought on by ineffective property rights and a transportation infrastructure that was more focused on meeting military requirements than economic development.
   
• Small and medium-sized businesses dominated the industry, continuing to produce using conventional methods because transportation limitations shielded their regional markets from competition from outside. Modern types of focused production were unique and coexisted with the ordinary pre-industrial organisations. Only 1.5 million individuals were working in companies with more than 10 employees in 1851, compared to 3 million who worked in smaller businesses. Poor transportation infrastructure, limited agricultural production development, low demand from the agrarian population, and a shortage of raw materials and energy sources were some of the factors limiting the establishment of heavy industry.
   
• Since the sluggish pace seems to be an oversimplification for France as a whole, historians are hesitant to refer to France's period as the "Industrial Revolution." When the Napoleonic Wars came to an end, the Industrial Revolution was already well under way in Britain. It quickly spread to Belgium and, to a lesser extent, northeastern France. The rest didn't alter all that much. The industrial development in the growing regions included some mining and a textile-heavy sector. The rate of industrialization lagged substantially behind that of Japan, the United States, Germany, and Britain. After 1685, the persecution of the Protestant Huguenots resulted in a widespread exodus of technical and entrepreneurial talent that was difficult to replace. Instead, closely owned family businesses that placed a strong emphasis on traditionalism and paternalism were what made French economic practises unique.
   
• As a result, Paris became a global hub for luxury workmanship and a robust banking system, but it also hindered the development of massive factories and multinational enterprises. Napoleon encouraged the study of engineering, and it paid dividends when well-trained graduates were available to build the transportation infrastructure, particularly the railways after 1840.
   
• Only from 1852 to 1857, when modern industry overtook smaller, artisanal output, did economic growth in the 19th century increase at the same rate as other industrialising countries. The development of mechanisation and financial systems was assisted by the railway, which also made it easier to move raw materials and completed goods. Previously separated marketplaces were thus brought together. The railways removed the constraints on the expansion of industries like coal and metallurgy by lowering transportation hurdles.
   
• A significant stimulant for metallurgy, coal, and engineering was also supplied by railway building, which "stimulated the further concentration of output through which capitalism became industrial rather than commercial." Small businesses that had previously dominated local markets with their things produced using artisanal, small-scale techniques suddenly faced competition from mass-produced, less expensive, and frequently superior quality goods arriving from factories.

The Le Chapelier Law 1791 was passed during the French Revolution and declared "free enterprise," outlawing unions, guilds, and strikes in particular. The loi Ollivier, which lifted the ban on strikes, was passed on May 25, 1864.

The Matignon Accords and the Popular Front both passed laws requiring 12 days (2 weeks) of paid vacation per year for employees between 1936 and 1938. (1936). This established the ability to form a union, to engage in collective bargaining, and the legal right to strike. Acts that restricted the workweek to 40 hours, excluding overtime, and guaranteed paid vacations were thereafter passed.

France has a long and proud history of strikes and revolt, such that I would consider it their national sport. We can see that here 3:

• 1229: University of Paris strike of 1229, riots at the University of Paris that resulted in a number of student deaths and reforms of the medieval university
• 1539-1542: Strikes over printers' wages in Lyon and Pari
• 1869: Violent strikes in St Etienne and Aubin
• 1880: Violent strikes
• 1891-1894: Violent strikes and anarchist terrorism
• 1900-1901: Violent strikes in Belfort and Marseille
• 1906-1907: Violent strikes
• 1908: Strikes in Nantes
• 1919-1920: Violent strikes
• 1936: General strike by one million workers
• 1947: 1947 strikes in France, a series of insurrectional strikes
• 1968: May 1968 events in France, a volatile period of civil unrest that was punctuated by demonstrations and massive general strikes as well as the occupation of universities and factories across France.
• 2016: 2016 French taxi driver strike, a strike by taxi drivers in several major cities against Uber, included many road blockades, fires, overturned vehicles, and the blockade of roads leading to the two major airports in Paris.

The position of strikes in France is as such:
In France, the right to strike is a fundamental right1, which means that the Constitution declares and upholds it.

"The right to strike shall be exercised in conformity with the legislation that governs that right.6"-[France, Constitution of the French Republic, 27 October 1946, Preamble, Paragraph 7]

It is a personal freedom that must be practised in a group setting. To put it another way, it takes a group of workers to decide to stop working in order to meet more work-related obligations. Only in the context of a nationwide strike may a single employee go on strike.

This commitment and assurance have two distinct results. On the one hand, the right to strike can only be regulated by law. Except in cases where legislation specifically assigns collective bargaining a meaningful obligation, the right to strike is not a subject (issue) that can be discussed during collective bargaining.

However, this obligation can only be confined. On the other hand, it is the duty of the Constitutional Court to make sure that the right to strike is respected by both the law and the body of precedent when it conducts its checks on the legality of legislation. Legislation can only restrict the exercise of the right to strike in the name of standards of equal constitutional validity.

So, what is considered a 'strike" in France 5?
The definition of a "strike" was left up to case law due to the absence of a definition in the French Labor Code. Therefore, a strike:

1. Is a right of an individual being collectively exercised? No, unless the striker is the sole person employed or is taking part in a national strike. The strike may, however, be restricted to a location/workshop, a professional category, and need not be supported by all employees of the firm;
2. Results from a consensus among the employees to file a claim; it may be spontaneous, but it must represent that choice;
3. Involves a widespread, complete interruption of the productive work, which is distinct from;
4. voluntarily slowing down work or output, sometimes known as a "go-slow" strike (grève perlée), or doing work poorly;
   An interruption of work that exclusively affects one employee's duties (such as the cessation of the on-call duty);
5. Relates to professional claims, as long as those claims are legitimate and lawful (e.g., working conditions, health and safety issues, rights of union representatives, etc.). A claim that is satisfied by breaching the law or a claim that is made in order to receive a top-up benefit will not be taken into account as a valid strike claim.

The French Labour Code's protection for strikers and non-strikers will take effect if the aforementioned requirements are satisfied.

So that is the position with regards to the strikers themselves?
Any worker in a private company has the right to take part in a strike. In France, the right to strike is a basic one that cannot be restricted by employers.

In the private sector, workers are only required to alert their employers after the strike really starts (i.e. no notice period applies, except in companies in charge of public services).

The employment contracts of the strikers are suspended but unaffected throughout the action. Strikers are nonetheless bound by the terms of their work contracts (e.g. loyalty, confidentiality).

Employers are not required to pay employees' salary unless:

• The goal of the strike is to ensure that the employer upholds a fundamental right (such as payment of wages and/or overtime, application of the applicable collective bargaining agreement, etc.);
• A minimal amount of work is completed;
• Or, unless a conflict resolution agreement between the employer and the trade unions specifies otherwise, the employer upholds the terms of that agreement.
   

Employees who participate in a strike are protected, especially against discipline or termination. If the workers participated in the strike legitimately, neither their dismissal nor disciplinary action may be used as justification.

Such actions would be deemed invalid. An employee who is fired due to a strike is entitled to a reinstatement to his or her prior positions and the compensation owed between the time of the dismissal and the time of the reinstatement, or (ii) if the employee does not want or is unable to be reinstated (which is very strictly assessed), damages of at least six months' salary.

Strikers who engage in deliberate wrongdoing, which is severely judged by case law, would be the lone exemption.
It would particularly affect the following circumstances:

• Preventing A Different Employee From Entering The Workplace And, In Particular, Blocking Entry Points For The Corporation;
• Unlawful Use Of The Business's Property;
• Displaying Violence, Profanity, Or Threats Toward Others, Especially The Management.

The jobs of strikers are also safeguarded; they cannot be replaced by temporary workers or employees with fixed-term contracts; the only alternatives would be to turn to service providers or divide the tasks assigned to the strikers among the non-strikers.

The strikers will be returned in their prior roles when the strike is over, with no effect on their careers or pay. However, if all absences are handled equally, the strike-related absences might be taken into account to lower a bonus or premium (except for the absences legally considered as effective working time).

Here is a case law:
Case No. 2841 (France) - Date of the Complaint: February 17, 2011 - Organization of General Labor (CGT)2

During a strike in October 2010, the complaining group claims that employees in the oil industry were requisitioned on prefectural directives.

The complaining organisation notes that a notable nationwide demonstration against pension reform took place in France in October 2010. Workers from all industries exercised their right to strike, and extraordinary huge rallies were planned with a significant amount of public support (more than a million people came to the streets).

The complainant organisation claims that the government's actions were irresponsible in this situation on a number of counts, including its outright refusal to engage in negotiations with the trade union organisations, its attempts to weaken the industrial action, and its abuse of its authority to requisition striking workers. The CGT claims that many prefectural administrations executed several requisitions.

One of the industries most heavily impacted by the strike was the oil industry. In order to avoid any convictions, they issued back-to-work orders for a number of days before rescinding them just before the legal authorities decided whether or not they were legitimate. The complaint believed that the requisitions had two goals: to quell the nationwide demonstrations and to sustain economic activity by reducing the effects of the strikes. Thus, there was a blatant infringement of the right to strike for workers of several oil corporations.

Requisitioning is a particularly efficient way to prevent workers from exercising their right to strike because if they refuse to go back to work after being requisitioned, they will be charged with a crime and face up to six months in prison and a €10,000 fine. In reality, the plaintiff claims that 160 employees were requisitioned in October 2010 and informed by the prefect of the criminal penalties they would face if they failed to go to work.

The Committee asks the Government to make sure that, going forward, the workers' and employers' organisations concerned are involved in the decision-making process and that measures are not implemented unilaterally in cases where a non-essential service is paralysed but there is justification for taking measures to ensure a minimum operational service.

Evolution of strikes law in India
The Indian freedom struggle7 and the passive resistance movements that preceded independence are directly related to Indian labour legislation. While India was a British Raj colony. Worker rights, trade unions, and freedom of association were all governed by the:

• Indian Slavery Act, 1843
• Societies Registration Act, 1860
• Co-operative Societies Act, 1912
• Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926
• The Trades Disputes Act, 1929

Workers who demanded better working conditions and trade unions that protested by going on strike were regularly and forcefully put down. Following the achievement of independence in 1947, a number of fundamental labour rights—including the ability to join and participate in unions, the idea of workplace equality, and the desire to establish a living wage and respectable working conditions—were incorporated into the Indian Constitution of 1950.

Everyone in India has the legal right "to create organisations or unions" according to Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution.

In India, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957's Section 22(1)(a) guarantees the right to strike as a legislative right.

The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 replaces the Trade Unions Act 1926, which was updated in 2001 to include provisions on governance and general rights of trade unions. We can observe that historically, trade unions in India have negatively impacted the country's industrial peace (obvious).

The Industrial Issues Act of 1947 governs how businesses may handle labour disputes such lockouts, layoffs, and retrenchments, among other things. It regulates the legal procedures for settlement and the resolution of labour disputes.

A right to strike is implied by the Industrial Disputes Act's 1947 structure. The courts have given the phrase "industry" a broad definition that encompasses hospitals, schools, clubs, and government agencies. The right to strike is recognised in Sections 22, 23, and 24. Section 24 distinguishes between a legal strike and an illegal strike. Section 2 (q) of the Act defines strike as "a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination or a concerted refusal, or a refusal, under; a common understanding of any number of persons who are or have been so employed to continue to work or to accept employment."

According to Sections 22 and 23, unlawful strikes are those that go outside the established strike-calling process. Thus, the clause suggests that all strikes are lawful and legitimate as long as they follow the established method. Therefore, there is no question that the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 takes a strike into consideration. Thus, the statutory regulations distinguish between lawful and illegal strikes. The judiciary will determine if it is legal or not.

The workers right to strike is complemented by the employers right to lock-out, thus maintaining a balance of powers between the two. Besides the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Trade Unions Act, 1926 also recognizes the right to strike. Sections 18 and 19 of the Act confer immunity upon trade unions on strike from civil liability.

The Industrial Relations Code of 2020 unified and revised the legislation governing trade unions, work conditions in industrial establishments or undertakings, and the investigation and resolution of labour disputes. Three Central Labor Laws are streamlined and combined under the statute.

Within nine years of its founding, in March 18628, Indian industrial workers engaged in their first-ever strike campaign. Howrah Station's 1200 railway workers went on strike in protest for an eight-hour workday. In 1877, workers at Nagpur Empress Mill went on strike in protest of low pay. There were 25 significant strike battles in the Madras and Mumbai Presidency between 1882 and 1890. Jute workers in Ghusuri, Bengal, went on strike twice in 1881 in protest over pay erosion. Jute workers in Budge Budge (a town close to Kolkata) went on strike for 6 days in 1885, and for 8 days in 1889. The protesting employees were shot at by the cops.

The newly formed class of industrial workers spontaneously responded to excessive exploitation with a number of conflicts as colonial industrialization progressed. These outbursts, which were mostly aimed at an excessive workload, poor pay, and a lack of minimal security, started to catch the eye of humanist thinkers. In other words, the developing working class movement established itself as a distinct entity inside the reformist movement.

While workers had not yet been properly organised into trade unions, humanist and charitable thinkers like Sashipada Banerjee of Bengal and N M Lekhande of Mumbai began some reform work among industrial workers. Indian Workers was a news publication for workers founded in 1874 by Sashipada Banerjee. Dinabandhu was a journal produced in Mumbai in 1898 by Lekhande.

On the outskirts of Kolkata, Mr. Banerjee also founded the Baranagar Institute to provide labourers with an elementary education. In 1884, the Brahmo Samaj spearheaded the establishment of night schools and a savings bank for jute workers in Baranagar, which was run by Sashipada Banerjee. P C Majumder, another Brahmo Samaj propagandist, founded 8 night schools in Mumbai to provide labourers with a foundational education.

In 1884, Lekhande organised 5,500 employees in Mumbai to sign a 5-point charter of demands for better working conditions, including a Sunday holiday, a half-hour lunch break, and payment of wages by the 15th of each month. This charter was then presented to a government committee.

In colonial India, the first factory legislation was passed in 1881. It forbade the employment of children less than 7 years old and granted kids between 7 and 12 years old four holidays. The age restriction for child labour was raised to nine years old by the Factory Act of 1891, substantially enhancing worker rights. Additionally, it stipulated a 7-hour workday for children under the age of 14, a 1-1/2-hour break for female employees, and a 30-minute break for male employees. Sundays were also designated as holidays.

The minimal rights of employees as outlined in the Factory Acts, however, were never implemented by either British or Indian capitalists. Workers rarely knew where to draw the line between Indian capitalists and British colonial authorities. Their confrontations with Indian capitalists and British colonial control, which were integrally intertwined, led to the development of their class consciousness.

Apart from that, There have been a long history of Industrial strikes in India 9.

• 1921 Buckingham and Carnatic Mills Strike
• 1926 Binny Mill Strike
• 1928 South Indian Railway Strike
• Meerut Conspiracy Case (1929)
• 1974 railway strike in India
• Great Bombay Textile Strike in 1982
• Harthal in Kerala 2012
• Indian general strike of 2016

With regards to strikes, there have been multiple conflicting precedents 10:

• In B.R. Singh v. Union of India (v), Justice Ahmadi opined that:
  "The Trade Unions with sufficient membership strength are able to bargain more effectively with the management than individual workmen. The bargaining strength would be considerably reduced if it is not permitted to demonstrate by adopting agitational methods such as 'work to rule', 'go-slow', 'absenteeism', 'sit-down strike', and 'strike'. This has been recognized by almost all democratic countries".
   
• Justice Bhagwati stated in Gujarat Steel Tubes v. Its Mazdoor Sabha that:
  The freedom to strike is essential to collective bargaining. He said that this right is a procedure that is backed by social justice and acknowledged by industrial law. Rangarajan's division bench ruling cannot be overturned since Gujarat Steel Tubes was decided by a three-judge panel. The court in the Rangarajan case lacked the ability to entirely nullify the legal right created by judicial law.
   
• There is no explicit mention of strikes in the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that strike is not a fundamental right in Kameshwar Prasad v. The State of Bihar 1958, settling the matter. Employees of the government do not have the legal or moral right to strike.
   
• The Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966, and the Rules as amended by Amendment Rules, 1970, came into effect, restricting the ability of members of the non-gazetted police force to create associations. In Delhi Police v. Union of India (1986), the Supreme Court maintained these limitations.
   
• The Supreme Court ruled in K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2003) that employees do not have a fundamental right to go on strike.
   
• The Supreme Court ruled in All India Bank Employees Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (1962) that the Constitution's Article 19(1)(c) cannot be interpreted to include the right to strike.

What We Can Learn
Taking into account the histories of both of the nations, one being the harbinger of modern western democracy, and the other being the world's largest democracy, we can notice certain similarities. Despite being from different nations, under the foot of massive capitalists, the suffering was felt equally by workers from both nations.

We can see that in both cases, typically, a strike is a response to employee complaints. When mass labour became crucial in factories and mines during the industrial revolution, the era of which coincided between the two nations, strikes became significant. However, since factory owners had far more political clout than employees, they were rapidly deemed illegal in the majority of nations. Subsequently, In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, striking became largely lawful in the majority of western nations.

Trade unions and other labour organisations utilise strikes as a very effective tool to have their demands met. In most cases, it entails a group of employees abandoning their jobs in order to put pressure on their employer to accede to their demands. Workers are considered to go on strike when they collectively stop working in a certain industry.

When it comes to this domain, we can't only consider the French to be trailblazers. Indians too were very active, creating many native protest techniques such as gherao. In Hindi, gherao means to encircle. It refers to a collective action started by a group of employees in which workers block the departure gates by building human barricades, preventing members of the management from leaving the grounds of the industrial plant. By barring the management's exits and ordering them to remain inside their cabins, the employees could gherao them. The primary goal of gherao is to torment the victim physically and mentally, hence this tool significantly affects the industrial tranquility.

For many employees and labour groups, the option of going on strike has long been a bargaining weapon. Employees have gone on strike for better pay, more reasonable work hours, better contracts and benefits, and better working conditions throughout both the nation's histories.

However, we can see that despite both countries being democracies, the French laws and legal precedents are far more progressive than Indian laws

An extremely crucial aspect that I would like to point out is the difference of stances with regards to the right to strike in both the countries. It is a night and day difference, reflecting the different histories of the nations, one being a country famous for its revolution loving populace, and the other being a former colony of the British empire, hell bent on suppressing revolts.

In France, the right to strike is a basic fundamental right, which means that the Constitution proclaims and guarantees it. In India, however, Article 19 of the Indian Constitution declares the right to protest to be a basic freedom. However, the right to strike is a legal one, not a fundamental one, and the Industrial Dispute Act of 1947 attaches statutory limitations to this right12.

Every right, in my opinion, is accompanied with obligations. The most strong rights have a greater number of obligations. Today, all nations, whether democratic, capitalist, fascist or communist, grant employees the freedom to strike. This is a widespread commercial and judicial phenomenon. But if this privilege is abused, it will affect the industry's ability to produce and make money, thus it must only be utilised as a last choice. The nation's economy would ultimately be impacted by this.

Regardless of this opinion, what I've learned from researching is this: Strike is an important weapon in the hands of the labourer used to strengthen his bargaining power. Logically speaking, labourers who do grueling hard work with low pay could never hope to compete with big capitalists, many of whom are in cahoots with the executive or law enforcement.

Also, we see that one of the most significant international labour rules is the freedom to strike. Several international legal instruments of the UN, ILO, and EU, which stipulate that the right to strike has universal character, control and manage this right on a global scale. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights are the two key UN treaties that govern the right to strike (1966).

Thus, what we can learn, looking at both international and French law is that the right to strike should be of a fundamental rather than a statutory character. Over 12.8 million people in India worked in factories during the 2019 fiscal year, and from that, it is guaranteed that a majority of them live wage to wage. Thus, it is the need of the hour to make the right to strike much more powerful, to make it explicitly guaranteed by the constitution, instead of relying on multiple contradictory judicial precedents based on Article 19 (1)(c) to decide the basic rights of underprivileged workers.

The Indian Constitution states in Article 51(c) that the state must uphold international law and treaties, and it states in Article 253 that the Indian Parliament must ratify such international laws and treaties. The right to strike has been incorporated into every international law and agreement, including the International Labor Organization and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even though the core of collective bargaining is what all international accords pertaining to workers discuss, India has given little attention to these conventions. Even the Indian legal system has disregarded the continuous evolution of the right to strike.

The right to strike must be granted as a basic right immediately. Because if the right to strike is not recognised as a basic right, the freedom to organise groups and trade unions will be useless. Such rights will evaporate and be worthless. In today's economic processes world, the right to strike is crucial. It is the most powerful tool available to employees for pressing their demands on the employer.

Making the right to strike a fundamental right will, in my opinion, enhance not only the nation's economic structure but also the financial security of its workforce, as well as their access to fair salaries, hygienic conditions, and other benefits. The ability to strike should be an inherent right granted to employees in the modern, civilised society.

If the right to strike is not recognised as a basic right, it will still damage the economic system, disproving the claim that a strike can result in economic laws due to the sectors' dysfunction. Trade union and organisation membership will decline, causing economic losses for industry and ultimately the whole nation.

Conclusion
In summary, my work has led me to the conclusion that the right to strike should be of a fundamental rather than of a statutory nature. This paper has highlighted underlined the importance of the right to strike by taking into account historical developments and the modern international law perspective.

My paper provides a springboard and an encouragement for our politicians to finally take some action and secure the basic labour rights for the workers of our country, in line with international norms. It is only then that we as a country will progress towards a better, more stable future.

Bibliography

1. http://scioperi.cgil.it/Europa/Francia-en.pdf
2. https://www.epsu.org/sites/default/files/article/files/France%20-%20Right%20to%20strike%20in%20public%20sector.pdf
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_France
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_France
5. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/how-to-deal-with-strikes-in-france-52604/
6. https://www.ilo.org/legacy/english/dialogue/ifpdial/llg/ch5/ex1.htm
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_labour_law
8. http://archive.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2008/april/working_class_hundred_years.html
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India#British_era_(1793%E2%80%931947)
10. https://indiatogether.org/combatlaw/vol2/issue6/strike.htm
11. https://www.insightsonindia.com/2021/08/07/insights-into-editorial-no-fundamental-right-to-strike/
12. https://lexforti.com/legal-news/is-right-to-strike-a-fundamental-right/