Constitutional Validity And Unfair Labour Practices - An Analytical Study Of Labour Law In India
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Constitutional & Human Rights
Published:
Updated:
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY AND UNFAIR LABOUR
PRACTICES: AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF LABOUR LAW IN INDIA
Sooriya. S, VIT Chennai
ABSTRACT
Labour law in India sits at an intriguing crossroads — it is at once a creature of legislative design and a child of constitutional conscience. The relationship between the constitutional framework and the concept of unfair labour practices has never been a simple or static one. From the foundational debates of the Constituent Assembly to the most recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court, this intersection has been continuously negotiated, contested, and reinterpreted. This research paper seeks to examine the constitutional validity of legal provisions governing unfair labour practices in India, with particular focus on how Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy together shape the jurisprudential landscape of worker protection.
The paper analyses the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly its Fifth Schedule, which catalogues unfair labour practices, and tests these provisions against the constitutional guarantees enshrined in Articles 14, 19(1)(c), 21, 23, and Part IV of the Constitution. Through a careful reading of landmark case laws — including Randhir Singh v Union of India, Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v Abdulbhai Faizullabhai, People's Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India, and several others — the paper demonstrates that the constitutional basis for prohibiting unfair labour practices is not merely incidental but deeply embedded in the transformative vision of the Indian Constitution. The paper concludes with observations on gaps in the current framework and the road ahead for a more robust, constitutionally anchored regime of labour protection.
Keywords: Unfair Labour Practices, Constitutional Validity, Industrial Disputes Act, Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, Trade Unions, Equal Pay, Forced Labour.
I.
INTRODUCTION
There is something deeply personal about the law of labour. Unlike corporate law or even constitutional law in its abstract sense, labour law deals with human beings in their most vulnerable economic condition — working, surviving, and striving for dignity. It is law that touches the lunch boxes of factory workers, the night shifts of contractual employees, and the collective voice of men and women who have nothing to sell but their time and skill. In a country like India, where the working population constitutes the backbone of an economy still climbing out of deep inequality, labour law is not a peripheral concern. It is, in many ways, a measure of the nation's moral seriousness. The concept of 'unfair labour practice' is relatively modern in legal vocabulary, though the conduct it describes is as old as employment itself.
In India, the term was formally introduced through the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act, 1947, and later consolidated in the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6 These are practices — by employers or by trade unions — that undermine the rights of workers, impede genuine collective bargaining, or subvert the industrial relations machinery established by law. They range from employer interference with union activities to trade union coercion of non-member workers. Yet the question that legal scholarship has not always adequately answered is: where do these protections draw their ultimate legitimacy? Is the prohibition of unfair labour practices merely a statutory convenience, or does it have a deeper constitutional root?
And conversely, do any of these provisions, in their actual application, risk overstepping constitutional boundaries — particularly in relation to the freedom of employers or the autonomy of trade unions? This paper attempts to answer those questions. It does so not by retreating into pure doctrinal abstraction, but by situating the law within the lived realities of Indian industrial relations and the constitutional vision articulated by Dr B R Ambedkar and other framers of the Constitution. 27 II. THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR LABOUR RIGHTS
2.1 Fundamental Rights and Their Application to Labour
The Constitution of India, enacted in 1950, is not a document that speaks softly on the question of labour. Several of its provisions directly address the conditions under which human beings must work and the guarantees they are entitled to as citizens and as persons. Article 14 guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. 1 In the labour context, this has been interpreted to mean that workers similarly situated must receive similar treatment — an interpretation that has directly informed the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Article 19(1)(c) protects the right of all citizens to form associations or unions,2 making trade union activity a constitutionally protected exercise of freedom. Any state action — or inaction — that permits the systematic dismantling of trade unions therefore runs into a direct constitutional barrier.
Article 21, though stated tersely as the right to life and personal liberty,3 has, through decades of expansive interpretation, come to encompass the right to live with dignity. The Supreme Court in People's Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India explicitly linked forced labour and exploitative employment conditions to a violation of Article 21 read with Article 23. 14 Article 23 prohibits traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour. 4 This provision has been given a remarkably broad reading by Indian courts. It is not limited to outright slavery or bonded labour; it extends to any situation where a worker is compelled to work against their will or for remuneration so inadequate as to amount to practical compulsion. This constitutional prohibition is the bedrock upon which the entire edifice of anti-exploitation labour law is built.
2.2 Directive Principles and the Social Vision of Labour Law
The Directive Principles of State Policy, enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution, are not legally enforceable in the same way as Fundamental Rights — but to dismiss them as mere political aspirations would be a grave misreading. As the Supreme Court affirmed in Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India, the Constitution envisages a harmonious reconciliation between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, not a hierarchy where one perpetually trumps the other.21 Article 39(d) directs the State to ensure equal pay for equal work for both men and women.5 Articles 41 and 42 speak of the right to work and to just and humane conditions of work. Article
43 envisions a living wage for workers. Taken together, these provisions paint a portrait of a
society in which working men and women are treated as ends in themselves — not merely as inputs in a production process. When an employer engages in an unfair labour practice — denying legitimate wages, victimising union members, or circumventing lawful employment conditions — they are not merely breaking a statute. They are undermining a constitutional vision. III. UNDERSTANDING UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES
3.1 Statutory Definition and Scope
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982, introduced a specific chapter dealing with unfair labour practices. Section 25T prohibits any employer, workman, or trade union from committing any unfair labour practice. Section 25U makes such practices punishable by fine. 6 The Fifth Schedule of the Act lists specific unfair labour practices in three parts. Part I catalogues unfair labour practices on the part of employers and trade unions of employers — including interference with the right to organise, domination of a union by an employer, discrimination against union members in employment decisions, and victimisation of workers for legitimate union activity.
Part II lists unfair labour practices on the part of workmen and trade unions — including coercing workers to join or not join a particular union, engaging in illegal strikes, or refusing to implement a lawful award. Part III addresses actions that are unfair from both sides. What is striking about this list is how closely it mirrors the concerns that animated constitutional debates about worker protection. The fear that employers would use their economic dominance to suppress legitimate worker organisation — and the countervailing concern that trade unions should not themselves become instruments of coercion — both reflect the inherent inequality of the employment relationship and the state's constitutional obligation to correct it.
3.2 The ILO Context
India's approach to unfair labour practices cannot be fully understood in isolation from international labour standards. ILO Convention No 87 on Freedom of Association19 and Convention No 98 on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining20 lay down international benchmarks that closely parallel the constitutional guarantees in Articles 19(1)(c) and 14. While India has not ratified Convention No 87, its constitutional provisions and domestic legislation have been interpreted in a manner broadly consistent with these international standards, reflecting a judicial inclination to draw upon international human rights instruments in construing domestic constitutional law.
IV. CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY: CASE LAW
ANALYSIS
4.1 The Equality Dimension
Equal Pay for Equal Work Perhaps no principle in Indian labour law has generated more constitutional litigation than the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. In Randhir Singh v Union of India,9 the Supreme Court was confronted with a situation where drivers employed by the Delhi Police were paid less than drivers in other government departments performing essentially the same work. The Court held, in a landmark judgment, that while the principle of equal pay for equal work is not explicitly stated as a fundamental right, it is a constitutional goal inferable from Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) read together. The Court declared that unequal pay for equal work is not just unfair — it is constitutionally impermissible.
This decision is significant for our inquiry because it illustrates precisely how a labour practice that might appear to be merely an 'unfair' employment condition is in fact a constitutional violation. The constitutional validity of wage parity provisions in labour law, including those that prohibit differential wage structures designed to undermine union demands, draws direct sustenance from this jurisprudential line.
4.2 Freedom of Association and Anti-Union Practices
In Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v Abdulbhai Faizullabhai,10 Justice Krishna Iyer, writing for the Supreme Court, offered one of the most passionate articulations of the constitutional basis of trade union rights in Indian judicial history. The Court observed that trade unions are not a luxury for workers — they are a survival mechanism in an economy where the individual worker is virtually powerless against an organised employer. The right to form and participate in trade unions, protected under Article 19(1)(c), would be rendered nugatory if employers could freely engage in practices designed to undermine union strength — such as selective retrenchment of union activists or the promotion of company-sponsored unions.
The decision thus established a crucial linkage: the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association is not merely a formal right to establish a union; it implies a substantive protection against practices that would make the exercise of that right practically impossible. Employer interference with union formation, victimisation of union members, and the promotion of company-controlled unions are not simply statutory violations — they are incursions into the constitutional right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c).
4.3 Forced Labour and Dignified Work
The Article 21 and Article 23 Nexus The Supreme Court's decision in People's Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India14 remains the most authoritative judicial treatment of Articles 21 and 23 in the context of labour exploitation. The case arose from a public interest litigation challenging conditions of workers employed in construction projects for the Asian Games. The Court found that workers were being paid below the minimum wage and were in conditions tantamount to bonded labour. The Court held that compelling a person to provide labour for remuneration less than the minimum wage necessarily implies the element of force or compulsion — and is therefore 'forced labour' within the meaning of Article 23. This decision has profound implications for the constitutional validity of anti-exploitation labour provisions.
When the Industrial Disputes Act prohibits employers from paying workers below negotiated wage rates, or mandates procedural fairness before retrenchment, it gives statutory form to the constitutional mandate against forced and degrading labour. The constitutional validity of such provisions is thus not merely probable — it is presumptively strong.
4.4 Fairness in Public Employment
The Article 14 Standard In Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd v Brojo Nath Ganguly,16 the Supreme Court extended the reach of Article 14 into employment contracts. The Court held that where one of the parties is the state or a body exercising public functions, and the other party is in a weaker bargaining position, unconscionable or arbitrary contractual terms can be struck down as violative of Article 14. A service rule allowing termination on three months' notice without assigning any reason was held to be constitutionally infirm. This decision, while technically limited to public sector employment, has had wider influence. It signals that the constitutional principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 is not confined to legislative action — it permeates contractual relationships where the state is a party.
The implications for unfair labour practices in public sector undertakings are direct: dismissal, victimisation, or discriminatory treatment of workers by public employers that lacks a rational basis will be constitutionally vulnerable.
4.5 Workers' Rights in Winding Up
A Constitutional Dimension In National Textile Workers Union v P R Ramakrishnan,23 the Supreme Court held that workers have a constitutional right to be heard in company winding-up proceedings. The Court observed that the right to livelihood, which forms a component of the right to life under Article 21, cannot be extinguished without affording affected workers an opportunity to be heard. This decision expanded the scope of worker participation in industrial decisions, including those relating to closure — one of the most significant management actions capable of constituting an unfair labour practice when done in retaliation for union activity.
V. TENSIONS AND
CHALLENGES
IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
5.1 The Employer's Rights
A Counter-Constitutional Narrative Constitutional discourse on labour law is not a one-way street. Employers too have constitutionally protected interests. The right to carry on trade or business, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g), has been invoked by employers to challenge various labour law provisions as unreasonable restrictions on economic freedom. Courts have had to navigate carefully between the worker's constitutional entitlements and the employer's legitimate business interests. The requirement of prior government permission for retrenchment or closure under Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act — applicable to industrial establishments employing 100 or more workers — has been a persistent site of constitutional contestation.
Employers have argued that such mandatory prior permission amounts to an unreasonable restriction on the right to close a business, infringing Article 19(1)(g). Courts have generally upheld these provisions, holding that the restrictions are reasonable in the public interest given the social disruption that mass retrenchment can cause. But the debate continues, particularly in the context of economic liberalisation. 26
5.2 Contract Labour and the Problem of Disguised Employment Relationships
One of the most significant structural challenges to the constitutional framework of anti-unfair labour practices is the widespread use of contract labour as a strategy to evade the protections available to regular workers. By engaging workers through contractors, employers have been able to pay less than minimum wages, avoid social security obligations, and deny workers the benefits of union recognition — all without technically violating the letter of labour legislation. The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946,18 and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, have sought to address this problem. In State of Karnataka v Umadevi (3),15 the Supreme Court grappled with the constitutionality of regularising casual and temporary workers who had served for long periods.
The judgment, while cautionary about unlimited regularisation, acknowledged the constitutional imperative of preventing the perpetuation of an underclass of workers who are denied rights available to permanent employees.
5.3 Gender and Labour
The Vishaka Framework A complete account of constitutional validity and unfair labour practices must address the dimension of gender discrimination in employment. In Vishaka v State of Rajasthan,17 the Supreme Court, in the absence of comprehensive legislation, laid down binding guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women at the workplace. The Court grounded these guidelines directly in Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 — treating the failure to protect women workers from sexual harassment as a form of sex-based discrimination and a violation of the right to work in conditions of dignity. Sexual harassment in the workplace is, quite clearly, an unfair labour practice of the most personal and damaging kind. By treating it as a constitutional violation, the Supreme Court sent a powerful message: the constitutional protection of workers is not limited to collective economic rights.
It encompasses the individual worker's right to a safe, dignified, and nondiscriminatory work environment. The subsequent enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, gave statutory form to this constitutional mandate. VI. THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE AND LABOUR RIGHTS The basic structure doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala,22 holds that certain features of the Constitution are so fundamental that they cannot be abrogated even by constitutional amendment. While the doctrine was developed primarily in the context of property rights and separation of powers, its relevance to labour rights is gaining increasing scholarly attention.
There is a persuasive argument that the right to dignified labour, freedom from forced work, and the ability to organise collectively are so closely tied to human dignity and social justice — themselves elements of the basic structure — that Parliament cannot legislate them away. If the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood, as the Supreme Court has held, then legislation that systematically enables unfair labour practices to continue unaddressed may, in extreme cases, transgress the constitutional order itself. 25 VII. CRITICAL APPRAISAL AND THE ROAD AHEAD
7.1 Enforcement Gaps
The Law on Paper vs the Law in Action One of the most sobering conclusions that emerges from a study of constitutional validity and unfair labour practices in India is the deep chasm between doctrinal aspiration and practical reality. The constitutional provisions are expansive; the case law is, by and large, progressive; and the statutory framework, for all its imperfections, does attempt to address the most egregious forms of employer and union misconduct. And yet, the lived experience of millions of Indian workers tells a very different story. Enforcement of unfair labour practice provisions is notoriously weak. The labour inspectorate is under-staffed and under-resourced. Adjudication before Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals is slow, often taking years to reach a final decision.
Workers who wish to challenge an unfair labour practice frequently face a practical choice between prolonged litigation and the immediate economic pressure to accept unfair terms or lose their employment altogether. 26
7.2 The Labour Codes and the Constitutional Question
A critical development in Indian labour law in recent years has been the consolidation of existing legislation into four Labour Codes — on Wages, Industrial Relations, Social Security, and Occupational Safety. This consolidation exercise, while broadly welcomed as an attempt to simplify an unwieldy body of legislation, has also been criticised for diluting several worker protections.
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which replaces the Industrial Disputes Act among other legislation, retains provisions on unfair labour practices. However, there are concerns that the threshold for applicability of certain protections has been raised — for example, the threshold for mandatory retrenchment approval has been increased from 100 to 300 workers, meaning a substantially larger number of establishments can now retrench workers without prior government permission. Whether this change can be constitutionally sustained, given the Article 21 right to livelihood and the Directive Principles, remains to be authoritatively determined by the courts.
7.3 The Informal Economy
A Constitutional Blind Spot Perhaps the most fundamental critique of the existing framework is that the bulk of India's working population — the hundreds of millions who work in the informal economy, as domestic workers, platform workers, agricultural labourers, street vendors, and migrant workers — are effectively excluded from the protective reach of the Industrial Disputes Act and the constitutional jurisprudence built around it. The constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(c), 21, and 23 do not, of course, discriminate between formal and informal workers. But the statutory framework through which these rights are enforced is largely oriented towards the organised formal sector. This structural gap is, in itself, a constitutional concern.
If the state has a constitutional obligation to protect workers from unfair labour practices, the systematic exclusion of the majority of workers from that protection raises a serious Article 14 question. 25 VIII.
CONCLUSION
Labour law is, at its core, a constitutional project. Every provision that prohibits an unfair labour practice — whether it is the employer's victimisation of a union organiser, or the trade union's coercion of a non-member worker — is an act of constitutional implementation. It gives practical effect to the transformative vision of a Constitution that promised its people not just political liberty but economic justice. The constitutional basis for prohibiting unfair labour practices is rich and multi-layered. It draws from the equality guarantee of Article 14, the associational freedom of Article 19(1)(c), the expansive right to life and dignity under Article 21, the prohibition of forced labour in Article 23, and the social direction of the Directive Principles.
The Supreme Court, through decades of progressive jurisprudence, has woven these constitutional strands into a coherent framework that recognises the inherent power imbalance of the employment relationship and the state's constitutional responsibility to correct it. And yet, the task is far from complete. The challenge ahead is not merely doctrinal refinement — it is the practical challenge of building a labour law regime that reaches every working person in India, not just those fortunate enough to be employed in a formal sector establishment. The constitutional promise made in 1950 was not addressed only to the organised worker. It was addressed to the construction labourer, the domestic worker, the gig economy driver, and the migrant who crosses state lines in search of a livelihood. The constitutional validity of anti-unfair labour practice provisions is not in serious doubt.
What is in doubt — and what must urgently be addressed — is whether those provisions will ever be adequately enforced, comprehensively extended, and practically meaningful for the millions of Indian workers who need them most. That, ultimately, is the constitutional question that matters.
ENDNOTES:
1 Constitution of India, 1950, Art 14 — The State shall not deny to any person equality before
the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
2 Constitution of India, 1950, Art 19(1)(c) — All citizens shall have the right to form
associations or unions.
3 Constitution of India, 1950, Art 21 — No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law.
4 Constitution of India, 1950, Art 23 — Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar
forms of forced labour are prohibited.
5 Constitution of India, 1950, Art 39(d) — The State shall direct its policy towards securing
equal pay for equal work for both men and women.
6 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, s 2(ra); Fifth Schedule — defines and catalogues unfair labour
practices on the part of employers and trade unions.
7 Trade Unions Act, 1926, s 17 — provides immunity of registered trade unions from criminal
conspiracy charges in trade disputes.
8 Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 — provides compensation for workers injured in the
course of employment.
9 Randhir Singh v Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879 — Supreme Court held the principle of
'equal pay for equal work' is a constitutional goal under Arts 14, 16, and 39(d).
10 Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v Abdulbhai Faizullabhai, AIR 1976 SC 1455 — the Supreme Court
expanded the interpretation of unfair labour practices and trade union rights.
11 Bharat Bank Ltd v Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd, AIR 1950 SC 188 — early landmark
ruling recognising worker rights within constitutional provisions.
12 Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company v Management, AIR 1973 SC 1227 —
Supreme Court on retrenchment and the procedural protections afforded to workmen.
13 Bangalore Water Supply v A Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548 — the triple test for 'industry' under
the Industrial Disputes Act laid down.
14 People's Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473 — forced labour
held violative of Art 23 and the right to life under Art 21.
15 State of Karnataka v Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 — the Supreme Court addressed irregular
appointments in public employment and constitutional equality principles.
16 Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd v Brojo Nath Ganguly, AIR 1986 SC 1571
— the doctrine of fairness and non-arbitrariness in employment contracts of public bodies.
17 Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 — guidelines on workplace sexual
harassment grounded in Arts 14, 15, 19, and 21.
18 Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 — requires employers in industrial
establishments to define and publish conditions of service.
19 ILO Convention No 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise,
1948 — guarantees workers' and employers' right to establish and join organisations of
their choosing.
20 ILO Convention No 98 on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, 1949 — protects
workers against anti-union discrimination.
21 Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 — balance between Fundamental
Rights and Directive Principles reaffirmed as part of the Constitution's basic structure.
22 Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 — basic structure doctrine
established; rights linked to life and dignity are protected from abrogation.
23 National Textile Workers Union v P R Ramakrishnan, AIR 1983 SC 75 — workers' right to
be heard in winding-up proceedings recognised as a constitutional entitlement.
24 Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v Management, AIR 1958 SC 353 — definition of
'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act elaborated by the Supreme Court for the first time.
25 H D Singh, Unfair Labour Practices and Indian Labour Law (1st edn, Eastern Book Company
1995) 112.
26 S C Srivastava, Industrial Relations and Labour Laws (6th edn, Vikas Publishing House
2012) 289, 347.
27 Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume VII (14 December 1948) — Dr B R Ambedkar on
the inclusion of economic and social rights in the Constitution of India.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Cases Bangalore Water Supply v A Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548 Bharat Bank Ltd v Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd, AIR 1950 SC 188 Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd v Brojo Nath Ganguly, AIR 1986 SC 1571 Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v Abdulbhai Faizullabhai, AIR 1976 SC 1455 National Textile Workers Union v P R Ramakrishnan, AIR 1983 SC 75 People's Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473 Randhir Singh v Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879 State of Karnataka v Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v Management, AIR 1958 SC 353 Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company v Management, AIR 1973 SC 1227 B.
Legislation Constitution of India, 1950 Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 Industrial Relations Code, 2020 Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, Trade Unions Act, 1926 C. Books and Articles H D Singh, Unfair Labour Practices and Indian Labour Law (1st edn, Eastern Book Company 1995) S C Srivastava, Industrial Relations and Labour Laws (6th edn, Vikas Publishing House 2012) V V Giri, Labour Problems in Indian Industry (3rd edn, Asia Publishing House 1972) Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume VII (14 December 1948) ILO Convention No 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, ILO Convention No 98 on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, 1949