Karnataka High Court Restrains KSRTC and BMTC Strike: Essential Services Law and Workers' Rights Explained

The Karnataka High Court on May 19, 2026, restrained the Joint Action Committee (JAC) of various road transport trade unions from proceeding with an indefinite strike that was scheduled to begin on May 20. The division bench of Justices Suraj Govindaraj and K. Manmadha Rao issued the order covering employees of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC), North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC), and Kalyana Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (KKRTC). The Court directed the State Government to hold a meeting between union representatives, the Transport Minister, the Chief Minister, and relevant Secretaries to resolve the dispute. This case raises important questions about the balance between workers' fundamental right to strike and the government's power to prohibit strikes in essential services under the Karnataka Essential Services Maintenance Act.

Background: What the Transport Unions Were Demanding

The transport unions called for an indefinite strike citing multiple grievances, including demands for higher wages, better working conditions, and regularization of contract workers. During the hearing, counsel for the transport corporations submitted that a 12.5 per cent salary hike had already been implemented and Rs 450 crore had been disbursed to employees. However, the unions contended that the salary revision was insufficient and that several other demands related to pension benefits, working hours, and safety conditions remained unaddressed. The proposed strike would have affected public transport services across Karnataka, impacting millions of daily commuters who depend on state-run buses for essential travel to workplaces, hospitals, and educational institutions.

KESMA: Karnataka Essential Services Maintenance Act

The legal backdrop to this dispute is the Karnataka Essential Services Maintenance (Amendment) Act, 2013 (KESMA). A state government notification dated December 23, 2025, issued under Section 3(1) of KESMA, had already prohibited strikes in the services of KSRTC, BMTC, NWKRTC, and KKRTC with effect from January 1, 2026, up to June 30, 2026. KESMA empowers the state government to declare any service as an essential service and to prohibit strikes and lockouts in such services for a specified period. The Act provides for criminal penalties for persons who participate in, instigate, or abet illegal strikes. Police officers can arrest violators without a warrant. Cases under KESMA can be tried through summary proceedings. At the central level, the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA), 1968 provides a similar framework, though its application has lapsed and been renewed multiple times. Several states, including Karnataka, have enacted their own versions with state-specific modifications.

Right to Strike in India: Constitutional Position

The right to strike is not a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court in T.K. Rangarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2003) held that government employees do not have a fundamental, legal, or equitable right to go on strike. However, the right to form trade unions and engage in collective bargaining is protected under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution (right to form associations) and various labour statutes including the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the new Industrial Relations Code, 2020. The legal position creates a tension: workers can form unions and negotiate collectively, but their most powerful collective action tool, the strike, can be restricted or prohibited by the government. Courts have generally upheld such restrictions when they relate to essential services that directly affect public welfare, while being cautious about blanket prohibitions that effectively eliminate all bargaining leverage for workers.

The Court's Direction: Negotiation Over Confrontation

Rather than simply enforcing the KESMA prohibition and dismissing the unions' grievances, the Karnataka High Court adopted a balanced approach by directing the State Government to hold direct negotiations with the union representatives at the highest levels, including the Chief Minister and Transport Minister. This approach recognizes that while the strike may be legally prohibited under KESMA, the underlying grievances driving the strike call are legitimate concerns that require administrative attention. The Court's direction for a meeting between the unions, the Transport Minister, the Chief Minister, and relevant Secretaries signals that judicial intervention in labour disputes is most effective when it facilitates dialogue rather than merely imposing restrictions.

Key Takeaways

The Karnataka High Court restrained the transport unions from proceeding with the indefinite strike while directing the State Government to engage in direct negotiations. Strikes in KSRTC, BMTC, NWKRTC, and KKRTC are prohibited under KESMA until June 30, 2026, through a state government notification. The right to strike is not a fundamental right in India, as held by the Supreme Court in T.K. Rangarajan (2003), though collective bargaining rights are constitutionally protected. A 12.5 per cent salary hike and Rs 450 crore in payments had already been made to employees, but the unions claimed several demands remained unaddressed. The Court's approach of ordering negotiations alongside the restraint order reflects the judiciary's preference for resolution through dialogue in essential services disputes.