JUDGEMENT J.B.Koshy and Ravi Ranjan JJ. 1. This writ petition has been filed as a public interest litigation raising two fold contentions. The first contention is that continuation of strike by the Government servants in Bihar is illegal and for which an appropriate action is required to be taken against them and the second contention is that considering the global financial meltdown and economic condition of the country the salary of the Government servants should not be increased. 2. Concerted refusal under a common understanding by a group of employees constitute strike. Strike usually used as a weapon directly against the employer for redressal of the grievances of the employees. This right to strike without violating law and service conditions is not banned. In Morgan V/s. Fry, (1968) 3 WLR 506, Lord Denning MR observed as follows: "The nature, of the right of strike is such as in my view, cannot be abridged or taken away, save in strict conformity with the provisions of the statute providing for such abridgment or taking away." 3. In Syndicate Bank V/s. K. Umesh Nayak, 1994(2) LLJ 836 , the Supreme Court has held as follows: "The strike, as a weapon, was evolved by the workers as a form of direct action, during their long struggle with the employers. It is essentially a weapon of last resort, being an abnormal aspect of employer-employee relationship and involves a withdrawal of labour, disrupting production, services and running of the enterprise. It is a use by the labour of their economic power, to bring the employer to see and meet their viewpoint, over the dispute between them.... The cessation or stoppage of work, whether by the employees or by the employer, is detrimental to the production and economy and to the well being of the society as a whole. it is for this reason that industrial legislation, while not denying the right of workmen to strike, has tried to regulate it, alongwith the right of the employer to lockout and has also provided a machinery for peaceful investigation, settlement, arbitration and adjudication of the disputes between them ......The strike or lockout is not be resorted to, because the concerned party has a superior bargaining power or the requisite economic muscle to compel the other party to accept its demand. Such indiscriminate use of power is nothing but an assertion of the rule of Might is right". Such indiscriminate use of power is nothing but an assertion of the rule of Might is right". Its consequences are lawlessness, anarchy and chaos in the economic activities which are most vital and fundamental to the survival of the society. Such action when the legal machinery is available to resolve the dispute, may be hard to justify. This will be particularly so when it is resorted to by the section of the society which can well await the resolution of the dispute by the machinery provided for the same. The strike or lockout as a weapon, has to be used sparingly, for the redressal of urgent and pressing grievances, when no means are available or when available, means have failed to resolve it. It has to be resorted to, to compel the other party to the dispute, to see the justness of the demand. It is for this reasons that industrial legislation, such as the Act, places additional restrictions on strikes and lockouts in public utility services." 4. if the employees go on strike against the provisions of law it is considered to be illegal. Even a legal strike started with notice also can be unjustified strike. As such, the Supreme Court held in Chandramalai Estate Ernakulam V/s. Its Workmen, 1960 LLJ 243 (SC) that indiscriminate and haste use of this weapon should not be encouraged. Whether a strike is legal or unjustifiable depends upon the facts of the case. Action for mere participation in the strike is different from the allegation of obstructing other willing employees to work and inciting violence or destruction of public property etc., and the quantum of punishment may differ depending upon the circumstances and facts of each case. 5. Government employees are governed by the service conditions and if they go on strike disobeying the service conditions then the Government can take an appropriate action in accordance with law against those employees. They cannot take the society at ransom by going on strike. Even if there is injustice or demands to some extent are not considered, in a democratic welfare State, they have to resort to the machinery provided under different statutory provisions for redressal of their grievance. They cannot take the society at ransom by going on strike. Even if there is injustice or demands to some extent are not considered, in a democratic welfare State, they have to resort to the machinery provided under different statutory provisions for redressal of their grievance. Law on this subject is well settled and it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of T.K. Rangarajan V/s. Government of T.N. and Others, (2003)6 SCC 581 that the employees have no fundamental right to resort to strike. 6. The Government servants who are getting salary from the State from the public exchequer should be more responsible to the public at large. Whether strike was illegal or whether was unjustified, what was the misconduct of each of the employees, whether they have merely participated in the strike or whether they have committed any offence, incited violence and obstructed other willing employees to work, all these questions are to be decided by the employer according to law complying with the principle of natural justice and service law. In any event, right to work is a fundamental right and nobody has got his right to obstruct the willing employees to do the work. Destruction of public property etc., cannot be justified. But in a writ petition what is the action to be taken against any employee cannot be decided. 7. Since the strike was called off on the basis of undertaking given to this court and recorded in the order dated 9.2.2009 no further orders are necessary. Both the sides are bound to the undertaking given and recorded in the above order. Salary of the Government employees are being revised on the basis of recommendation of Wage Revision Committee constituted by the respective Governments. If any of the public has got any objection in increasing the wages he may place their contention before the appropriate forum and they cannot file a public interest litigation saying that the salary of the Government employees should be revised at all. In the order dated 9.2.2009 this Court has directed the Wage Revision Committee to look into the grievances of the employees with an open mind and to take a decision on the grievances of the employees after consulting with the representatives of the employees. In the order dated 9.2.2009 this Court has directed the Wage Revision Committee to look into the grievances of the employees with an open mind and to take a decision on the grievances of the employees after consulting with the representatives of the employees. Even after the decision of the Committee still they have a grievance that has to be agitated in accordance with lew and without violating provisions of law and servlee conditions. If any of the parties are penalized by the Government in spite of the assurance given by the Advocate General on 9.2.2009 those parties can highlight their problem before any forum. 8. We make it clear that under public interest litigation this Court cannot hold that wage revision cannot be granted to the Government employees in view ef the spiralling price and increase of the cost of living etc. Increase in wages of the employees working in private establishments, Nationalised establishments, Central Government Undertakings, Central Government and other State Governments are matters to be considered by the Pay Revision Committee alongwiih capacity of the State etc. This Court has no expertise to fix salaries of the Government employees and this court cannot hold that no wage revision can be granted to the employees of the State. 9. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands dismissed.