Government counsel Rakesh Tiku told a division bench, of acting Chief Justice Devinder Gupta and Justice K.S. Gupta, ``If the striking doctors do not adopt an accommodating approach, the government may resort to any action which includes dismissal and termination''.

Tiku's submission came after the court asked what action the government was taking to end the stir. ``If the faculty members have any grievances (against non-implementation of the K.K. Bakshi committee report) they have legal remedy open for this,'' the bench said, while asking the AIIMS faculty members' association to make their stand clear by tomorrow.

The court adjourned hearing after Association counsel Rekha Palli submitted that any decision on ending or continuing the strike would be taken by its general body.

Tiku denied that any negotiations were on with the doctors saying the submission in this regard by faculty members in their affidavit yesterday was only their ``presumption''. Meanwhile, the government has set up a committee of officials from the Ministries of Finance and Personnel to examine the financial implications of the Bakshi committee report, he added. The court was hearing a public interest petition filed by advocate Arun Kaushal who said the strike should be banned.

Strongly opposing the attitude of the government, senior advocate Danial Latifi, appearing for the association, said: ``Such an action by the government is uncalled for. This will ruin the prestigious institute, where doctors are getting only one-tenth of the salary given by the super speciality private hospitals''.

``If the government adopts such an attitude, it will result in brain-drain from AIIMS as the doctors are there because of the prestige of the institute despite being forced to work in `sub-human' conditions,'' he argued.

He said the doctors were only asking for the implementation of the K.K. Bakshi committee report, which the government itself had set up. ``They are forced to go on strike as the government did not pay any heed to their demand and take notice of various `symbolic agitations','' he said. The court, however, asked: ``We are concerned why the strike should continue. How can they go on strike like this?'' the judges asked.