No right, howsoever fundamental, is absolute. Society is entitled to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of every right. Even such a right as the freedom of speech and press is subject to a reasonable restriction like the prohibition on the uttering of a scandal or the publication of a libel. The right to strike is not moreover a merely per­sonal right. It becomes meaningful only when it is exercised collectively by large bodies of workers. That being the case, the restrictions that can be reasonably imposed upon the right acquire a bigger dimension and larger variety. For example, the right may not be available in emergencies like those of war or civil commotion, or it may not be open to certain classes of workers such as those employed in the Army or the Navy, or it may be necessary to fulfil certain conditions such as that of giving prior notice. Many such restrictions have been imposed by democratic societies. Some of them have been imposed through legislation, but most of them through tacit or express agreements between employers and employees. The experience has all along been that it is the latter type of restrictions which have proved more effective and fruitful.

Strikes which were common and frequent during the early period of capitalism became progressively , less common and less frequent as it became better organised and more prosperous. Prosperity depend­ed on continuous and uninterrupted production. En­lightened self-interest persuaded capitalists to recog­nise the strength of the growing organisations of workers and enter into agreements with them speci­fying the terms and conditions of employment as well as provisions for securing their adjustments or revision. Strikes were thus avoided or rendered un­necessary. The arrangement suited both employers and employees. Having secured through collective agreements alternative methods for representation and redressal of grievances as well as improvement of conditions, workers found strikes more and more unnecessary. The number of strikes and their dura­tion and intensity did not therefore increase with the growth of industries and of the number of workers employed in them. There was, on the other hand, a progressive decline in the number and intensity of strikes, except during short periods of acute economic crisis. At a certain stage, the Gov­ernment also found it necessary to give up its role of a ringside observer and take upon itself the posi­tive responsibility of avoiding strikes through appropriate action such as the appointment of Boards of Conciliation, Courts of Inquiry or similar authorities. Strikes sometimes created problems of law and order, sometimes they resulted in grave hardship to the general public and sometimes they dislocated vital sectors of national economy. These likely results made it necessary for the Government, on many occasions, to intervene and stop employers and employees from indulging in a trial of strength. Sometimes it could be done through persuasion. On other occasions, it was necessary to resort to legal measures. Then there was the awakening of the public conscience which resulted in the enactment of a body of social legislation providing relief and protection. All this made it less necessary for industrial workers to make use of the weapon of strike.