STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS

PRESENTED BY :
NIKITA BEGUM TALUKDAR
Table of contents

01 STRIKES:
meaning & 03 Legal, illegal,
justified and
concept unjustifed strikes

02 Legality 04 Lockout
 Introduction
Strikes and Lockouts are the weapons in the hands
of workers and employers.
Strikes is collective stoppage of work by workmen in
order to bring pressure upon the employers to fulfill
their demands.
Lockout is a weapon of employer similar to strikes
wherein the employer shuts down his place of
business as an instrument of coercion or as a mode
of exerting pressure upon workers with a view to
dictate his own terms to them.
 01

STRIKES: Meaning & Concept

 Meaning:
S. 2 (q) of ID ACT, “strike” means a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any
industry acting in combination or a concerned 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 to accept employment;

S. 2 (zk) Industrial relations Code 2020, "strike" means a cessation 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 to accept employment and includes the
concerted casual leave on a given day by fifty per cent. or more workers
employed in an industry;
 Essential Ingredients:
1. Cessation of work;
2. Cessation of work must by the body of workers employed
in any industry
3. They must be acting in combination
4. Employed in an industry (defined under the act)
5. Must be concerted refusal to work or
6. Refusal under a common understanding.
Cessation of work;
• This is the most significant characteristic of concept of strike.
• It means stoppage of work or refusal to continue to work.
• There is no strike if there is no cessation of work.
• However duration immaterial.
• It may be for temporary period. It may be nominal.
• A mere apprehension or threat of strike on some future date is not a strike.
• Token strikes (for few hours or minutes is common nowadays. Leading case is :
Buckingham and Carnatic co. V. workers of Buckingham and Carnatic co. ltd.
Buckingham and Carnatic co. V. workers of Buckingham and Carnatic
co. ltd.
:
In this case the issue was whether the workers who stopped working in shifts
amounted to strike? If it was a strike whether it was illegal? Can wages be
deducted for the day?

Facts:
• During night shift Carnatic Mills (textile industry under public utility service) some
workers stopped working at shifts. By 10 am strike ended completely.
• The cause of strike was to demand holiday for that day for solar eclipse
• After one day the management put up a notice that stoppage of work amounted to
illegal strike and those participating in that strike wont get holidays with pay.
• It was not accepted by madras Union. Matter referred by Govt. to Industrial Tribunal.
• The tribunal was of view that strike was illegal as the industry was public utility and
notice was not served of the strike.
Facts:
• So those striking were not entitled to holidays with pay.
• However adjudicator wil be deprived only half their holiday with pay.
• This union appealed against the order to labour Appellate Tribunal.
• Held that there was no strike as it did not cause interruption to workers service..
• Management filed SLP before SC.
• Sc held:
• The conclusion reached by the tribunal was correct. It amounted to strike as
wokers were acting in concert.
• It was a illegal strike.
• The appellate tribunal was thus in error in not regarding it as strike.
• The SC set aside the order of Labour appellate tribunal.
 KINDS OF STRIKES
1. GENERAL STRIKE: where workers join together for common cause and stay away
from work. Token strike is a kind of general strike. It is for a day or few hours.
2. STAY IN STRIKE: also called as Tools down strike or pens down strike. Workmen
report to their duties occupy premises but don't work. It falls under s. 2(q) of ID
ACT.
3. GO-SLOW: Workmen donot stay away from work, they do come but work in slow
speed to lower down production and cause loss to employer. Go slow strike is
NOT A STRIKE u/s 2(q) of the ACT.
4. HUNGER STRIKE: the group of workers resort to fasting on or near the place of
work or residence of employer. It is a form of strike u/s 2(q).
5. WORK TO RULE: workmen strictly adhere to the rules while performing their
duties which ordinarily they do not observe. It is no strike as there is no stoppage
of work at all.
Summarize what have you learnt so
far
 02

STRIKES: LEGALITY
 PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO
STRIKE
Chapter V, S. 22-25 of ID ACT

• Public Utility services industries should adhere S. 22 and S. 23 of the Act before
striking or Lockout.
• Non Public Utility services industries to adhere S. 23 of the Act.
• A difference as to provisions made with respect to public utility and non public utility
services.
• Public Utility services (defined u/s 2 (n) includes industries where services are
provides as to: railways, ports, power, light, postal, telegraph, industries notified
by appropriate gov. in public interest or emergency
 CH.VIII, S. 62-64 Industrial Relations Code 2020

• No such difference with respect to public utility and non Public utility services
industries. EVERY INDUSTRY TO FOLLOW STRIKE PROCEDURE.
• Provision of public utility services don't exist under the code
• Section 62(1) deals with strikes.
• Section 62(2) deals with Lockouts.
• Section 63 deals with illegal strikes and lockouts
• Lets discuss the provisions.
STRIKE PROCEDURE: CODE 2020
S. 62(1)
 Section 62. (1)
No person employed in an industrial establishment shall go on strike, in breach
of contract—
(a) without giving to the employer notice of strike, as hereinafter provided,
within sixty days before striking; or

(b) within fourteen days of giving such notice; or

(c) before the expiry of the date of strike specified in any such notice; or

(d) during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation

officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings; or

(e) during the pendency of proceedings before a Tribunal or a National Industrial

Tribunal and sixty days, after the conclusion of such proceedings; or

(f) during the pendency of arbitration proceedings before an arbitrator and sixty
days after the conclusion of such proceedings, where a notification has been issued
under sub-section (5) of section 42; or

(g) during any period in which a settlement or award is in operation, in respect

of any of the matters covered by the settlement or award.
Strike Notice: 60 days before striking (i.e, after notice within 60
days should resort strike)
NO STRIKE: within 14 days of giving Notice
NO STRIKE: before the expiry of date of strike mentioned

NO STRIKE: During pendency of Conciliation proceeding before CO

and within 7 days of conclusion of proceedings

NO STRIKE: During pendency of proceeding before Tribunal or National

Tribunal and within 60 days of conclusion of proceedings

NO STRIKE: During pendency of proceeding before Arbitrator and within 60 days

of conclusion of proceedings

NO STRIKE: During any period in which a settlement or award is in operation

CASE LAWS
Stretch Break!
Let’s take 5 minutes to stretch
 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Respondent:
Petroleum Employees' Union and Ors. (2001)IILLJ81Bom
• The Appellant is an industry engaged in the manufacture of petroleum products
including Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG).
• The Appellant Corporation, a Government Company, had entered into a long term
settlement prescribing the conditions of service of its workmen. This long term
settlement was to last for five years from 1st June, 1993 to 31st May. 1998.
• After expiry of the said settlement, the Respondent Unions, which represent the
workmen of the Appellant, submitted a fresh Charter of Demands.
• There was a series of meetings to negotiate the demands put forward by the
workmen, but no settlement could be finalized.
• On 13th October, 2000 the Respondent Unions issued a strike notice under Section
22(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 informing the Appellant that the
Respondent Unions propose to call upon the workmen concerned to resort to an
strike of any duration and nature, on the expiry of the 14th day from service of
the notice, for the reasons explained in the annexure to the strike notice.
• The annexure to the strike notice indicates a number of pending demands of the
workmen and also alleges an unjustifiable delay in holding negotiations on the
part of the Appellant Corporation.
• This strike notice was received by the Appellant on 17th October, 2000. As
required under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a copy of the
strike notice was endorsed simultaneously to the Central Government
Conciliation Officer. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central Government),
Mumbai, took the strike notice under conciliation on 18th October, 2000 and
issued a letter calling upon the Respondents to restrain the workmen from
proceeding on any strike as their demands were under conciliation.
• On 19th October, 2000, the Respondent Unions and its members went on a strike
at all the locations in the Western region as a consequence of which the supply
and distribution of petroleum products was disrupted resulting in inconvenience
to the public.
• The Appellant by now realised that, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 22
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the workmen and the Unions proposed to
continue the strike despite the pending conciliation proceedings.
• A suit was filed before the Bombay H.C by the appellants to declare the strike to
be illegal and unjustified and to restrain the workers to resort to strike or any
other activity also fine of 1 lakh rupees.
• The learned Counsel for the Respondent Unions, strongly opposed any relief being
granted to the Appellant in the Appeal. He urged that it is well settled, for more
than fifty years, that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to grant any relief which
would amount to enforcement of a contract of employment or which would
trench upon the exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon Industrial Tribunals by
special statutes.
• Further, under Sections 17 and 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, immunity was
specially conferred upon the Trade Unions against the consequence ensuing when
they were acting in furtherance of trade dispute as defined in the said Act. Hence,
he urged that it is not open to a Civil Court to discard or disregard this immunity
and inject a Trade Union in the teeth of the law which has been consistently laid
down from early forties, both in England as well as in this country.
• On the other hand, it was the submission of learned Counsel for the
Appellant, that notwithstanding the enactment of a special statute like the
Industrial Disputes Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a Suit,
to restrain workmen from going on illegal strike in breach of their
obligations imposed on them by the Industrial Disputes Act, was not barred.
• He urges that, in the instant case, the workmen commenced a strike within
fourteen days of the giving of the notice and are also threatening to go on
strike even during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings.
 Court held:
• A civil Suit to restrain the employees from going on a strike, irrespective of
whether the proposed strike is legal or illegal under a special statute, cannot be
brought in a Civil Court.
• The only manner in which the statute contemplates the enforcement of
obligations provided under ID ACT, is indicated in Section 26 of the Act which
prescribes a penalty for any workman who commences, continues or otherwise
acts in furtherance of a strike which is illegal under the Act, the penalty being
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may
extend to fifty rupees, or with both.
• In the entire body of the Industrial Disputes Act, there is neither any indication,
nor provision of the manner in which the obligations under Section 22 are to be
enforced.
• Court found no substance in the Appeal. Appeal was accordingly dismissed
 All-India Bank Employees' Association v. National Industrial
Tribunal (AIR 1962)

• Held that : the right to go on strike is not a fundamental right and that the
Supreme Court has pointed out that it is not even a statutory right, but a right
which is limited by the statute subject to the restrictions under the statute.
• The right to go on strike is not conferred either by the Constitution or by any
other statute.
• On the other hand, statute recognises this as inherent right to every human being
who has to render service to another, but seeks to restrict it in the larger interests
of society.
OTHER IMP. PROVISIONS
 Section 62 (3) of code
• The notice of strike or lock-out under this section shall not be necessary where there
is already in existence a strike or, as the case may be, lock-out, but the employer shall
send intimation of such lock-out or strike on the day on which it is declared, to such
authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government either generally or for a
particular area or for a particular class of services.
Section 62 (4)
• The notice of strike referred to in sub-section (1) shall be given by such number of
persons to such person or persons and in such manner, as may be prescribed.
 Section 62 (6)

If on any day an employer receives from any person employed by him any such notices as
are referred to in sub-section (1) or gives to any person employed by him any such notices
as are referred to in sub-section (2), he shall within five days thereof report to the
appropriate Government or to such authority as that Government may prescribe and to
the conciliation officer, the number of such notices received or given on that day.
 UNDER THE ID ACT:
S, 23 (6) ID ACT provides that employer to report the matter related to strike or
lockout to the Appropriate govt. or any such authority:
• If on any day an employer receives from any persons employed by him any
such notices as are referred to in sub-section (1) or gives to any persons
employed by him any such notices as are referred to in sub-section (2), he
shall within five days thereof report to the appropriate Government or to
such authority as that Government may prescribe the number of such
notices received or given on that day.
ILLEGAL STRIKES
 ILLEGAL STRIKES UNDER CODE 2020

63. (1) A strike or lock-out shall be illegal, if it is—

(i)commenced or declared in contravention of section 62; or
(ii) continued in contravention of an order made under sub-section (7) of section 42.
(2) Where a strike or lock-out in pursuance of an industrial dispute has already
commenced and is in existence at the time of the filing of the application relating to such
industrial dispute in the Tribunal or of the reference of such industrial dispute to an
arbitrator or a National Industrial Tribunal, the continuance of such strike or lock-out
shall not be deemed to be illegal, provided that such strike or lock-out was not at its
commencement in contravention of the provisions of this Code or the continuance
thereof was not prohibited under sub-section (7) of section 42.
(3) A lock-out declared in consequence of an illegal strike or a strike declared in
consequence of an illegal lock-out shall not be deemed to be illegal.
 Section 42 (7) of the IR Code provides:
When a notification is issued by the government in cases of reference of dispute to an
arbitrator by the parties, the government may pass an order prohibiting the
continuance of any strike in connection with such dispute which may be in existence
on the date of reference.
So, if any workers even after passing of such order by government continues the
strike, such strike shall be illegal.
 PENALTY FOR ILLEGAL STRIKES
.
SECTION 26 OF ID ACT. (old Act)
Penalty for illegal strikes and lock-outs.—(1) Any workman who commences,
continues or otherwise acts in furtherance of, a strike which is illegal under this
Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
month, or with fine which may extend to fifty rupees, or with both.

SECTION 86 (13) OF CODE:

Any worker who commences, continues or otherwise acts in furtherance of a
strike which is illegal under this Code, shall be punishable with fine which shall
not be less than one thousand rupees, but which may extend up to ten thousand
rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with
both.
LEGAL ILLEGAL, JUSTIFIED AND
UNJUSTIFIED STRIKES
 A strike may be legal yet unjustified, or it may be illegal but justified.
 Illegal strikes are those that are prohibited under Sections 62, 63, 42(7) of the
Code 2020 (Sections 22, 23 and 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947)
 All other strikes are considered legal.
 The distinction between justified and unjustified strikes is complex.
   Justified and Unjustified Strikes (Unprotected Strikes)
 The distinction between justified and unjustified strikes has been established not by the
legislature but by the Industrial Tribunals.
 A strike is considered justified if it is in connection with a current labor dispute or
directed against an unfair labor practice of the employer, and only after remedies
provided in the statutory machinery of the Industrial Disputes Act have proved futile.
 If the management remains adamant, or does not show its willingness to settle the
dispute by negotiations, a strike is held justified having been caused by the unfair labor
practices of the employer.
 Likewise, if the employer discharges union officers, or causes a union official to be
assaulted, the resultant strike is considered justified
 Refusal to recognize a union or to consult with it are considered justified reasons to
strike.
  It has been held that it is not proper “to judge from the result of adjudication of
demands whether a strike was justified or not………………….it cannot be said to be
unjustified unless the reasons for it are absolutely perverse and unsustainable.”
 When the demands of the labor are considered to be unreasonably high or are
not bonafide, or when the motive is embarrassment of the employer in spite of his
reasonable attitude, a strike is held to be unjustified.
  Consequences of Justified Strikes.
 A strike, legal or illegal, justified, or unjustified, does not dissolve the employer-employee
relationship.
 In the case of a justified strike the employee must be reinstated in his previous job without
loss of continuity of service.
  The rights of strikers are in no way abridged by temporary replacements, and they are
entitled to wages for the strike period.
 Consequences of Unjustified Strikes: In the case of an unjustified strike, the strikers can be
discharged only if the strike was not bona fide, and was launched to embarrass the
employer, or to force him to reopen some closed issues. These strikers are not entitled to
get wages for the strike period.
  In the case the term unprotected strike is seldom used in India. However, strikes
considered illegal or unjustified may be considered to be unprotected strikes.
 The Industrial Disputes Act does not discuss the general consequences of an illegal
strike on employer-employee relations.it says that under certain prescribed conditions
participants of an illegal strike may be held liable to criminal prosecution.
 Hence in the absence of statutory law on the result of an illegal strike, let us examine the
question in the light of case law.
  Right to discharge strikers:
 An illegal strike does not automatically put an end to the employer-employee
relationship. An employer does not have a unfettered right to dismiss a worker due to his
mere participation in such a strike.
 The worker cannot be discharged if he participated in technically illegal strike, but he
did so because of bona fide and legitimate issues, and did not commit any act of
violence or subversive activity.
 Of course, if the standing orders of the employer specifically make participation in an
illegal strike to be a misconduct, under penalty of dismissal, then the employer is within
his rights to dismiss the participants.
 Sitdown strikes (OR PEN DOWN STRIKES) are not considered illegal under the Industrial
Disputes Act.
 However, if sitdown strikers commit violence and cause damage, then such workers
should be individually dealt with, and should be given a chance to clear themselves before
they can be dismissed. (Punjab National Bank V. Their Workmen, 1959)
 In the case of slowdown strikers (GO SLOW STRIKE NOT RECOGNIZED), it has been made
clear that they are liable to be discharged.
  Wages for the strike period:
 Participants of an illegal strike are not entitled to the wages for the strike period. In the
case of Mahalaxmi Cotton Mills, the Appellate Tribunal observed:
“The right of the workmen to get pay for the period of the strike depends on the question
whether the strike was legal or illegal. If it was illegal……………..the position would be
anomalous, if in criminal law a workman is punishable for doing of an illegal strike, he would,
in civil law, be required to be compensated for his identical conduct.
 Similarly, in the case of a sit down strike, if a striker is discharged, the question of his
wages for the strike period does not arise. (in cases of illegal strikes)
 Even if the worker is not discharged, he is not entitled to wages for the strike period
because the strike is held to be unjustified, and therefore, without recourse to relief.
 Crompton Greaves V. The Workmen (AIR 1978 SC 1489)

 ISSUES:
Whether Wages for the period of strike can be given in cases of illegal strikes or
unjustified strikes?

 FACTS :
 SLP was filed before the Sc by the company Crompton Greaves against the order
passed by the Industrial Tribunal of West Bengal. In its order the tribunal directed the
appellant to pay striking workmen their wages, for a portion of the strike period viz.
from January 11, 1968 to the end of February, 1968.
 In this case the company decided to retrench its workers in the Calcutta branch
on ground f severe recession of business.
 Apprehending mass retrenchment of the workmen who numbered 353, the Trade
Union sought the intervention in the matter of the Minister in charge, Labour, and the
Labour Commissioner.
 Thereupon, there Assistant Labour Commissioner arranged joint conferences in his
office of the representatives of the Union and the Company with a view to explore
avenues for conciliation and amicable settlement.
 Two conferences were accordingly held on the 5th and 9th January, 1968 in which both
the parties participated. As a result of these conferences, the Company agreed to hold
bipartite talk with the representatives of the Union of at its Calcutta Office on the
morning of January 10, 1968 to find out the possibility of an agreed solution.
 The talk as agreed, did take place on the morning of January 10, 1968 but no agreement
could be arrived, at.
 The Assistant Labour Commissioner, however, continued to use his good offices to
bring about an amicable settlement through another joint conference which was
scheduled for January 12, 1968.
 On the afternoon of January 10 1968, the Company without informing the Labour
Commissioner that it was proceeding to implement its proposed scheme of
retrenchment, hung up a notice retrenching 93 of its Workman belonging to its
Calcutta Office.
 Treating the step taken by the Company as pretty serious demanding urgent attention
and immediate action, the workmen resorted to strike with effect from January 11. 1968
after giving notice to the appellant and the Labour Directorate and continued the same
upto June 26, 1968.
 In the meantime the industrial dispute in relation to the justification of the afore-said
retrenchment was referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal on March
1, 1968 as to the issue of the workmen entitlement to wages for the strike period from January
11, 1968 to June 26, 1968 .
 The Industrial Tribunal acceded to the workmen's demand for wages for the period
commencing from January 11, 1968 to the end of February, 1968 but rejected their demand
for the remaining period of the strike observing that the redress for retrenchment having
been sought by the Union itself through the Tribunal, there remained no justification
for the workmen to continue the strike.
  HELD BY THE COURT:
 It is well settled that in order to entitle the workmen to wages for the period of strike,
the strike should be legal as well as justified.
 A strike is legal if it does not violate any provision of the statutes.
 Again, a strike cannot be said to be unjustified unless the reasons for it are entirely
perverse of unreasonable. Whether a particular strike was justified or not is a question
of facts which has to be judged in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case.
 It is also well settled that the use of force or violence or acts of sabotage resorted to by
the workmen during a strike disentitles them to wages for the strike period.
  HELD BY THE COURT:
 The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that the Management has failed to
prove that the workmen resorted to force and violence during the period with which we
are concerned.
 Accordingly, we cannot interfere with the decision of the Tribunal in this appeal under
Articles 136 of the Constitution.
  Refer Cases
 Bank of India v. T.S kelawala (1990) (no work no pay. strikes legal or justified doesn’t
matter )&
 Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak (1994) (Klea wala case judgdement negative in this
case. Held: wages are payable only if strikes are legal and justified.
Thanks!
Do you have any questions?
addyouremail@freepik.com
+91 620 421 838
yourcompany.com

CREDITS: This presentation

template was created by Slidesgo,
including icons by Flaticon, and
infographics & images by Freepik.

Please keep this slide for attribution.