ASSIGNMENT- LEGAL ETHICS AND COURT CRAFT

SUBJECT CODE: 501

GENERAL PROHIBITION OF STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS

DEPARTMENT OF LAW

TRINITY INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

MR. ESHAAN MRIDUL VASHISHT

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR. BA LLB 2020-2025

TIPS. SEMESTER-IX

03020603820
 PROHIBITION OF STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS

INTRODUCTION

Strikes and lockouts in India are important industrial relations tools that both workers (for
strikes) and employers (for lockouts) can use to assert their demands or protect their
interests.

In India, right to strike is not expressly recognized by the law. The trade union Act, 1926 for
the first time provided limited right to strike by legalizing certain activities of a registered
trade union in furtherance of a trade dispute which otherwise breach of common economic
law.

The right to strike in the Indian constitution set up is not absolute right but it flows from the
fundamental right to form union. As every other fundamental right is subject to reasonable
restrictions, the same is also the case to form trade unions to give a call to the workers to go
on strike and the state can impose reasonable restrictions. In the All India Bank Employees
Association V. I. T.3, the Supreme Court held,

"the right to strike or right to declare lock out may be controlled or restricted by appropriate
industrial legislation and the validity of such legislation would have to be tested not with
reference to the criteria laid down in clause (4) of article 19 but by totally different
considerations."

Thus, there is a guaranteed fundamental right to form association or Labour unions but there
is no fundamental right to go on strike.4 Under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 the ground
and condition are laid down for the legal strike and if those provisions and conditions are not
fulfilled then the strike will be illegal.
 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

The history of labour strikes and lockouts in India can be traced back to the early 20th
century when the labour movement gained momentum during the British colonial period.
Workers engaged in various industries began organizing themselves to demand better
working conditions, fair wages, and improved labour rights. The first recorded labour strikes
in India took place in 1877 when jute mill workers in Calcutta protested against wage cuts.

The need for legal regulation of labour disputes became evident, leading to the enactment of
the Trade Disputes Act, 1929, which was the precursor to the IDA. However, the Trade
Disputes Act primarily focused on preventing civil unrest during strikes and did not provide
comprehensive provisions for the resolution of industrial disputes.

With the aim of providing a more structured framework for addressing labour disputes, the
Industrial Disputes Bill was introduced in the Constituent Assembly in 1947. This bill
eventually became the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which continues to be the primary
legislation governing industrial disputes in India.

DEFINITIONS AND MEANING

STRIKES

Strikes in India are governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 2(q) of said Act
defines the term strike, it says, “strike” means a cassation of work by a body of persons
employed in any industry acting in combination, or a concerted refusal, or a refusal, under a
common understanding of any number of persons who are or have been so employed to
continue to work or accept employment.
The strike means the refusal of work that is decided by the association of a group of
employees or workers. It is done by the workers to get their necessary demands fulfilled by
the employer of the company or industry. The strike includes:

 Willing full suspension of work.

 It is a temporary withdrawal of the workers from the work.
 The workers can do the strike outside or inside of the workplace.
 the common understanding for the suspension of work should be present for the
strike.
 it can be continued for any number of days.
 The workers start working when the demands are fulfilled.

The strike can make a loss to the industry as the workers will not do any kind of work. The
production or growth of the industry can take the loss.

LOCKOUTS

Section 2(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 defines Lock- Out

“Lock-out” means temporary closing of a place of employment, or suspension of work, or

the refusal of the work by the employer to continue to employ any number of persons
employed by him.

It includes:

 Closing of the industry

 Suspension of work
 Refusal by the employer to continue to employ any number of workmen employed in
the industry.
 LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The primary legislation governing strikes and lockouts in India is the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. This act provides the legal framework for the prevention and resolution of industrial
disputes, including strikes and lockouts. Section 22 and 23 of the act lay down the general
prohibition of strikes and lockouts during the pendency of conciliation or arbitration
proceedings.

1. Conditions for Strikes:

Section 22 of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 lays down the conditions for a lawful strike in
India:

 Notice to the Employer: Workers must give a notice of their intention to strike to their
employer at least 14 days before striking. This allows for conciliation proceedings to
take place and provides an opportunity for negotiation.

 Notice to the Concerned Authority: A copy of the notice given to the employer must
also be submitted to the appropriate government authority. This authority is usually
the labour department or a conciliation officer.

Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate (2005): In this case, the Supreme Court
reiterated the necessity of providing a valid notice before going on strike. It held that a strike
without proper notice is illegal. The court emphasized that notice is not a mere formality but
a statutory requirement, and failing to provide it can result in adverse consequences for the
striking workers.

 Reasonableness of Demands: The demands made by the workers must be

"reasonable" and should relate to an industrial dispute. The act does not define what
constitutes "reasonable" demands, leaving it to the discretion of the authorities.
II. Conditions for Lockouts:

Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 outlines the conditions for a lawful lockout in
India:

 Notice to the Employees: Employers must give notice of their intention to lockout to
the employees at least 14 days before implementing the lockout. This provides the
employees with an opportunity to take appropriate action.

 Notice to the Concerned Authority: Similar to strikes, employers must also submit a
copy of the lockout notice to the appropriate government authority.

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. V. State of West Bengal (1974): In this case, the Calcutta
High Court emphasized that the notice of lockout should be clear and unambiguous,
specifying the date on which the lockout is to commence. The court held that a vague or
ambiguous notice would not meet the requirements of the law.

 Reasonableness of Lockout: The lockout must be "reasonable" and should relate to an

industrial dispute. Again, what constitutes "reasonable" is not explicitly defined in the
act.

National Textile Workers' Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan (1983): In this case, the Supreme
Court emphasized that lockouts should not be used as a weapon to coerce workers but should
be a legitimate response to a genuine industrial dispute. It highlighted the importance of the
reasonableness of a lockout.
 GENERAL PROHIBITION

 Section 22 - Strikes and Lockouts in Public Utility Services:

Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, deals with strikes and lockouts in public
utility services. It states:

No person employed in any public utility service shall go on strike in breach of contract.

No workman employed in any public utility service shall go on strike without giving to the
employer notice of strike, as hereinafter provided, within six weeks before striking.

No employer carrying on any public utility service shall lock out any of his workmen.

No employer shall lock out any workmen employed in any public utility service unless he has
given them notice of lockout, as hereinafter provided, within six weeks before locking out.

Section 22 places additional restrictions on strikes and lockouts in public utility services to
ensure that essential services are not disrupted along with the judgments by the courts.

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board V. R. Rajappa (1978): In this case, the
Supreme Court of India held that water supply and sanitation services are essential public
utilities, and employees in these services cannot go on strike without adhering to the
provisions of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which requires a six weeks’ notice
before going on strike.

State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy (1953): This case dealt with the prohibition of strikes in
essential services. The Madras High Court ruled that an employee in the public health
department, which was considered an essential service, could not strike without giving
proper notice. This judgment emphasized the importance of following legal procedures in
such cases.
Indian Airlines Corporation V. United Labour Union (1996): The Supreme Court of India
ruled in this case that the employees of Indian Airlines, which was considered an essential
service, could not resort to strikes without complying with the provisions of Section 22 of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The court highlighted the importance of adherence to the notice
period for strikes in essential services.

State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya Boring Sramik Union (1962): In this case, the Supreme
Court held that the government has the authority to declare a lockout in public utility services
if there is a breakdown in negotiations or if there is a threat to public interest. This case
reinforces the principle that lockouts can be justified under certain circumstances in essential
services.

2. Section 23 - Prohibition of Strikes and Lockouts:

Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, deals with the prohibition of strikes and
lockouts during the pendency of conciliation proceedings and arbitration proceedings. Here
are the key provisions:

During Conciliation Proceedings: When a conciliation proceeding is in progress and a

conciliation officer or board has been appointed, no workman who is a party to the dispute,
and no employer who is a party to the dispute, shall go on strike or declare a lockout.

During Arbitration Proceedings: Similarly, during arbitration proceedings, if the industrial

dispute has been referred to arbitration, no workman who is a party to the dispute, and no
employer who is a party to the dispute, shall go on strike or declare a lockout.

The intention behind Section 23 is to maintain industrial peace and harmony during the
conciliation or arbitration process, providing an opportunity for the resolution of the dispute
through negotiation and mediation.
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. V. A. Ranganathan and Others (1985): In
this case, the Madras High Court emphasized that employees cannot go on strike during the
pendency of conciliation proceedings. The court held that strikes during conciliation
proceedings are unlawful.

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors. (1978): In this
landmark case, the Supreme Court held that the right to strike is not a fundamental right but a
statutory right. The court emphasized that strikes must be resorted to only when all other
methods of negotiation fail. This case underscores the importance of adhering to Section 22
during conciliation proceedings.

3. Section – 24 Illegal strikes and lockouts:

An illegal Strike and Lockout refers to a strike and lockout that does not comply with the
legal requirements set forth in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Such strikes and lockouts
are prohibited and may result in various consequences, including loss of protection from
termination and penalties. Key provisions related to illegal strikes include Section 24,
Section 25, and Section 26 of the Act.

Section 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, defines illegal strikes and lockouts and
prescribes the consequences for participating in or instigating such strikes.

IMPACT AND CONSEQUENCES

In India, strikes and lockouts are subject to legal consequences and penalties under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Here are the legal consequences and penalties:
 1. Penalties for Illegal Strikes and Lockouts:

Section 26 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

 Penalty for Illegal Strikes: Any workman who takes part in an illegal strike can be
subjected to penalties, including fines or imprisonment for a term that may extend to
one month.
 Penalty for Illegal Lockouts: Any employer who declares an illegal lockout can be
subjected to penalties, including fines or imprisonment for a term that may extend to
one month.

Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. v. Shramik Sena and Ors. (1999): This case
reaffirmed that an illegal lockout can lead to consequences for the employer. The court
ruled that an employer implementing a lockout without adhering to the legal requirements
could be liable for penalties.

2. Compensation for Lockout without Notice:

Section 25A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

If an employer declares a lockout without giving the required notice under Section 22(1A),
the affected workmen are entitled to compensation.

3. Impact on Wages during Strikes:

Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

This section specifies that during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings or
proceedings before a Labour Court, the employer cannot alter the conditions of service to the
detriment of the workmen, including the withholding of wages.
In the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Ghosh, the Supreme Court held that
an employer cannot withhold the wages of workmen during the pendency of conciliation
proceedings.

4. Disqualification from Employment:

Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

If a workman instigates or incites others to take part in an illegal strike, they may be
disqualified from employment in the industry or establishment for a specified period.

5. Recovery of Damages:

Section 27 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

Employers are liable to pay damages for any loss caused due to an illegal lockout.

In the case of Express Newspapers Ltd. v. Union of India (1959), the Supreme Court held
that employers are liable to pay damages for any loss caused due to an illegal lockout.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the prohibition of strikes and lockouts in India, as governed by the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, represents a crucial facet of labour law aimed at maintaining industrial
peace and harmony while protecting the interests of both workers and employers. This legal
framework necessitates adherence to specific conditions, including the provision of notices
and the reasonableness of demands, to ensure that industrial actions are conducted in a lawful
and orderly manner.
Case laws such as Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, Indian
Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. v. Shramik Sena, and National Textile Workers' Union v.
P.R. Ramakrishnan have played pivotal roles in interpreting and reinforcing these legal
provisions. They have underscored the significance of strikes and lockouts as last resorts,
requiring genuine, reasonable demands and adherence to the statutory notice requirements.

Ultimately, the delicate balance between the rights of workers to strike for their legitimate
demands and the imperative to safeguard public interests and industrial stability is
exemplified in the legal framework regulating strikes and lockouts in India. As labour
relations evolve, and as workers and employers continue to advocate for their respective
interests, these legal provisions and case laws remain essential tools for ensuring that
industrial actions are conducted responsibly and in harmony with the principles of justice and
fairness.