Exploring the logic of permitting the strikes in

furtherance of trade dispute- Inputs from real

life cases
Employment Law- 1
Faculty: Dr. Parul
Gupta

SUBMITTED BY-
GROUP 7
PGP-HRM 2018-20
AASHIMA GARG 18PGHR02
GOKUL NAIR 18PGHR25
ISHRAJ SINGH 18PGHR27
LAKSHAY BHALLA 18PGHR30
SAUMYA GUPTA 18PGHR43
1
SNEH MEHTA 18PGHR48

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to thank Prof. Dr. Parul Gupta, our Project Guide, for giving us an
opportunity to work on this project while supporting us throughout. She enlightened
us with a number of human resource management concepts involving IR issues. She
provided valuable insights of cases concerning strikes, lockouts, and how they have
been handled by different Industrial establishment and their comparative study for boons
and bane over the course of time for our better understanding. We are extremely
grateful to her for providing us continuous guidance and support throughout the
project work.
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 4

Historical Perspective – a Literature Review…........................................................5

British Legal Impression in India…............................................................................5

Introduction of Strike in India….................................................................................7

Position in India........................................................................................................8

Notice of Strike.........................................................................................................10

General prohibition of strike......................................................................................11

Illegal Strikes.............................................................................................................11

Consequence of illegal Strike…................................................................................12

Logic of permitting strikes in furtherance of trade disputes.......................................13

Examples from real life cases to prove the logic behind furtherance of...................14

Payment Wages during strike...................................................................................15

CONCLUSION…........................................................................................................... 17

RECOMMENDATIONS….............................................................................................18

REFERENCES….......................................................................................................... 19
 INTRODUCTION
Today, in each country of globe irrespective of government style; be it democratic,
capitalist, socialist, there’s a right to strike to the workers in response to an
Industrial/Trade Dispute. But what is equally important to consider is its usage
because if this right is misused, it will create a problem in the production and financial
profit of the industry and the social (law) order of the nation. This would ultimately
affect the economy of the country. Today, most of the countries, especially India
(under the leadership of hon'ble prime minister of India Narendra Modi), are inviting
foreign investment and under these circumstances it is necessary that countries who
seeks foreign investment must keep some safeguard in their respective industrial laws
so that there will be no misuse of right of strike.

So, what is a Trade Dispute?

Under Section 2(g) of the Trade Unions Act 1926, it covers any dispute, between
employer and workmen, between workmen and workmen, between employer and
employer in connection with employment or non-employment or the terms of
employment or the conditions of labor of any person.

What is an Industrial Dispute?

It covers the same definition as that of Industrial Dispute under Section 2(k) of
Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

In India, right to protest is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution of

India. But right to strike is not a fundamental right but a legal right and with this right
statutory restriction is attached in the industrial dispute Act, 1947.

But before proceeding, let’s have a look at the history of labor legislation and the
traditional labor scene in India.
Historical Perspective – a Literature Review

Exploitation of the skilled labor force in India:-

Indian slaves were an important component of the highly active slave markets of
medieval and early modern Central Asia. High demand for skilled slaves, and India's
larger and more advanced textile industry, agricultural production and tradition of
architecture demonstrated to its neighbours that skilled-labour was abundant in the
subcontinent leading to enslavement and "export" of large numbers of skilled labour as
slaves, following their successful invasions.

British Legal Impression in India:-

 Slavery Abolition Act 1833:-
The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (3 & 4 Will. IV c. 73) was an 1833 Act of the Parliament
of the United Kingdom abolishing slavery throughout the British Empire (with the
exceptions "of the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company", Ceylon, now
Sri Lanka, and Saint Helena; the exceptions were eliminated in 1843). The Act was
repealed in 1998 as part of a wider rationalization of English statute law, but later anti-
slavery legislation remains in force.

 Indian Slavery Act 1843:-

This was an act passed in British India under East India Company rule, which outlawed
many economic transactions associated with slavery. The sale of any person as a slave was
banned, and anyone buying or selling slaves would be booked under the Indian Penal
Code, with offence carrying strict punishment.
 Indian Indenture System:-
After the United Kingdom abolished slavery by the mid 19th century, it
introduced a new indentured labor system that scholars suggest was slavery by
contract.
In this new system, they were called indentured laborers. South Asians began
to replace Africans previously brought as slaves, under this indentured labor
scheme to serve on plantations and mining operations across the British
Empire. The first ships carrying indentured laborers left India in 1836.In the
second half of the 19th century, indentured Indians were treated as inhumanely
as the enslaved people previously had been. They were confined to their
estates and paid a pitiful salary. Any breach of contract brought automatic
criminal penalties and imprisonment. Many of these were brought away from
their homelands deceptively. Many from inland regions over a thousand
kilometers from seaports were promised jobs, were not told the work they were
being hired for, or that they would leave their homeland and communities. They
were hustled aboard the waiting ships, unprepared for the long and arduous four-
month sea journey. Charles Anderson, a special magistrate investigating these
sugarcane plantations, wrote to the British Colonial Secretary declaring that
with few exceptions, the indentured laborers are treated with great and unjust
severity; plantation owners enforced work in plantations, mining and domestic
work so harshly, that the decaying remains of immigrants were frequently
discovered in fields. If laborers protested and refused to work, they were not
paid or fed: they simply starved.
In other words, this formed the creation of NRIs diasporas settlement outside
Indian soil on foreign territories.
 Apprentice Act 1850:-
This act came into force to be applied to entire India except the state of
Jammu and Kashmir primarily dealing with empowering the Indian labor force
by supporting the transformation from ‘unskilled’ labor force to ‘skilled’ labor
force. To groom them and provide provision for training and ultimately making
them employable.
It designated a person as ‘Apprentice’ who is undergoing apprenticeship training
in a designated trade in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship in the
assistance of a person/industrial establishment as approved by the
appropriate government.
 Factories Act 1881:-
A committee was appointed in 1875 to inquire into the conditions of factory
work in the country. This committee had favored some kind of legal restrictions
in the form of factory laws.
During Lord Ripon’s time, the first Factories Act was adopted in 1881.
Following this act , a Factory Commission was appointed in 1885. There was
another Factories Act in 1891, and a Royal Commission on Labor was
appointed in 1892. The result of these enactments was the limitation on the
factory working hours. This was an answer of the Government to the pathetic
conditions of the workers in the factory, wherein, only when a laborer
exhausted, new laborer was to take his / her place.

But the above acts still didn’t protect the laborers from the clearly one-sided
rules and regulations favoring the employer/industrial establishment which
ultimately lead to the introduction of ‘strikes’ as a weapon for negotiations and
coercion.
Introduction of Strike in India

 Bombay Cotton Mill Strike – 1921

 Stoppage of work by nearly 1, 00,000 workers for nearly 4 days.
 The dispute arose with the primary demand of increase in wages.
 But the dispute did not benefit the workers as there was no formal
mechanism of settlement. And owing to sustained unemployment,
the workers had to rejoin the industrial establishment at the
prevailing wage rate.
 This marked the beginning of ‘Trade Unionism’ in India
ultimately resulting in the enactment of Trade Unions Act 1926.

But the prior to enactment of the act, labors were not sufficient as:-
 The representation of the workers was still informal done by a group of
workers or government officers on their behalf.
 After the Act legislation, it was not mandatory for the owners to
recognize or negotiate with the trade unions. And even if the
negotiations did happen, they easily withdrew from the settlement and
dismissed/imprisoned the protesting workers.
 So the Unions were neither popular nor strong.

 Bombay Textile Mill Strike – 1928

 A strike of 5 months involving 1, 50,000 workers was initiated by Giri
Kamgar Union (GKU) & Communists, formally termed as ‘Lal Jhanda
Politics’.
 There was no efforts were being made by the leaders of the official
Bombay Textile Union and the All-India Trade Union Congress.
 The strike was in accord for 17 demands as raised by the workers
including annulations of wage reduction, rise in wages for lowest paid
workers and phase out of new technology introduction of Three-Loom or
Whole-frame system.
 The employer’s federation, Bombay Mills Owners Association (BMOA)
initially refused on the fulfillment of demand but on sustained pressure
agreed on limited demands. So an agreement was reached upon between
the BMOA and the GKU.
 But immediately after the negotiation:-
 Summary dismissal of the protesting workers in the union from
employment in 1929.
 Withhold the wages of the workers for one month as a caution for
future strikes.
 Replaced the striking workers with casual workers, thus dealing a blow
to their daily living.
 Also, reported to Police to lock up the striking/protesting workers.
Position in India
In India, unlike America, 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. Now days a right to strike is recognized
only to limited extent permissible under the limits laid down by the law itself, as a
legitimate weapon of Trade Unions.

The right to strike in the Indian constitution set up is not absolute right but it flow 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., 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 Labor unions

but there is no fundamental right to go on strike. 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
Provision of valid strike under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947-
Section 2(q) of said Act defines the term strike, it says, "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 accept employment.
Whenever employees want to go on strike they have to follow the procedure provided
by the Act otherwise there strike deemed to be an illegal strike. Section 22(1) of the
industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 put certain prohibitions on the right to strike. It provides that no
person employed in public utility service shall go on strike in breach of contract:

a. Without giving to employer notice of strike within six weeks 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 as aforesaid;
or
d. During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer
and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings.

It is to be noted that these provisions do not prohibit the workmen from going on
strike but require them to fulfill the condition before going on strike. Further these
provisions apply to a public utility service only. The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 does not
specifically mention as to who goes on strike. However, the definition of strike itself
suggests that the strikers must be persons, employed in any industry to do work.

Types of Strike:
Notice of strike:

Notice to strike within six weeks before striking is not necessary where there is
already lockout in existence. In mineral Miner Union vs. Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd.,
it was held that the provisions of section 22 are mandatory and the date on which the
workmen proposed to go on strike should be specified in the notice. If meanwhile the
date of strike specified in the notice of strike expires, workmen have to give fresh
notice.

For details of case, refer https://indiankanoon.org/doc/307554/

In Sadual textile Mills v. Their workmen certain workmen struck work as a protest
against the lay-off and the transfer of some workmen from one shift to another without
giving four days notice as required by standing order 23. On these grounds a question
arose whether the strike was justified. The industrial tribunal answered in affirmative.
Against this a writ petition was preferred in the High Court of Rajasthan. Reversing the
decision of the Tribunal Justice Wanchoo observed:

"…We are of opinion that what is generally known as a lightning strike like this take
place without notice…. And each worker striking ….(is) guilty of misconduct under
the standing
orders …and liable to be summarily dismissed…(as)… the strike cannot be justified at

all. " For details of case, refer https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1210941/

General prohibition of strike-
The provisions of section 23 are general in nature. It imposes general restrictions on
declaring strike in breach of contract in the both public as well as non- public utility
services in the following circumstances mainly: -

a. During the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a board and till the expiry
of 7 days after the conclusion of such proceedings;
b. During the pendency and 2 months after the conclusion of proceedings
before a Labour court, Tribunal or National Tribunal;
c. During the pendency and 2 months after the conclusion of arbitrator,
when a notification has been issued under sub- section 3 (a) of section
10 A;
d. During any period in which a settlement or award is in operation in respect of
any of the matter covered by the settlement or award.

The principal object of this section seems to ensure a peaceful atmosphere to enable
a conciliation or adjudication or arbitration proceeding to go on smoothly. This section
because of its general nature of prohibition covers all strikes irrespective of the
subject matter of the dispute pending before the authorities. It is noteworthy that a
conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer is no bar to strike under section
23.

In the Ballarpur Collieries Co. v. H. Merchant it was held that where in a pending
reference neither the employer nor the workmen were taking any part, it was held that
section 23 has no application to the strike declared during the pendency of such
reference.

For details of case, refer https://indiankanoon.org/doc/721143/

Illegal Strike-
Section 24 provides that a strike in contravention of section 22 and 23 is illegal. This
section is reproduced below:

1. A strike or a lockout shall be illegal if,

i. It is commenced or declared in contravention of section 22 or section 23;
or
ii. It is continued on contravention of an order made under sub section
(3) of section 10 or sub section (4-A) of section 10-A.
2. Where a strike or lockout in pursuance of an industrial dispute has already
commenced and is in existence all the time of the reference of the dispute to
a board, an arbitrator, a Labour court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, the
continuance of such strike or lockout shall not be deemed to be illegal;,
provided that such strike or lockout was not at its commencement in
contravention of the provision of this Act or the continuance thereof was not
prohibited under sub section (3) of section 10 or sub section (4-A) of 10-A.
3. A strike declared in the consequence of an illegal lockout shall not be deemed to
be illegal.
Consequence of illegal Strike-

Dismissal of workmen-

In M/S Burn & Co. Ltd. V, Their Workmen, it was laid down that mere participation
in the strike would not justify suspension or dismissal of workmen. Where the strike was
illegal the Supreme Court held that in case of illegal strike the only question of
practical importance would be the quantum or kind of punishment. To decide the
quantum of punishment a clear distinction has to be made between violent strikers
and peaceful strikers.

In Punjab National Bank v. Their Employees, it was held that in the case of strike,
the employer might bar the entry of the strikers within the premises by adopting
effective and legitimate method in that behalf. He may call upon employees to
vacate, and, on their refusal to do so, take due steps to suspend them from
employment, proceed to hold proper inquires according to the standing order and
pass proper orders against them subject to the relevant provisions of the Act.

M/S Burn & Co. Ltd. V, Their Workmen

References: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/362390/

For detailed judgement: http://lawfinderlive.com/jlink.aspx?

q=79789&p=1&pos=6&qType=6&tidp=135684&tid=797 89

Punjab National Bank v. Their Employees,

References: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1763716/

http://logosconsultancy.co.in/llb/?p=730
Logic of permitting strikes in furtherance of trade disputes-
Strikes - Justified and Unjustified: A strike may be technically perfectly legal in that it
may not have been resorted to in contravention of the provisions of Section 22 and
23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but still the conduct of the striking workmen
may be highly reprehensible, disorderly and violent whereas the attitude of the
employer may have all along shown complete reasonableness and a desire for
conciliation.

Similarly, a strike may have been illegal in that it may have been resorted to without
due regard to the compulsory compliance of the mandatory requirements of the
relevant section of the Act such as, service of notice in the case of public utility
service or violation or prohibition of strike during the pendency of adjudication
proceedings, but the demands of the striking workmen may be quite legitimate, lawful
and justifiable whereas the attitude of the employer may have shown malafides,
unreasonableness and motive of exploitation.

However, in Gandhiji's view, a strike of inevitable, has to be called out after

negotiations for the settlement of workers' just demands have collapsed and the
demand for arbitration has been turned down or the arbitration has been turned down
or the arbitration has failed should pass the below mentioned test:

1. The cause of the strike must be just;

2. There should be practical unanimity among strikers;

3. No violence should be used against non-strikers;

4. Strikers should be able to maintain themselves during the strike period without
falling back upon union funds and should therefore occupy themselves in some
useful and productive temporary occupation.

In Chandramalai Estate, Ernakulum v. its workmen*, K.C. Gupta J. stated that while on
the one hand it has to be remembered that strikes is a legitimate and sometimes
unavoidable weapon in the hands of labour, it is equally important to remember that
indiscriminate and hasty use of this weapon should not be encouraged. It will not be
right for labour to think that for any kind of demands a strike can be commenced with
impunity without exhausting reasonable avenues for peaceful achievement of their
objects.

Refer:http://www.lawyerservices.in/Management-of-Chandramalaiestate-Ernakulam-
Versus-Its-Workmen-and-Another-1960-04-04
Examples from real life cases to prove the logic behind furtherance of
strikes-

There may be cases where the demand is of such an urgent and serious nature that
it would not be reasonable to expect labour to wait till after asking the Government to
make a reference. In such cases, strike even before such a request had been made,
may well be justified.

Collective bargaining for securing improvement on matters like basic pay,

dearness allowance provident fund, bonus and gratuity, leave and holidays is the
primary object of a trade union and when demands like these ate put forward
and thereafter, a strike is resorted in an attempt to induce the employer to agree to
the demands or at least to open negotiations,

1. The strike Majumdar P. An anatomy to Peaceful Industrial Relation must prime

facie be considered to be justified unless it can be shown that the demands
were put up frivolously or for any ulterior purpose. Even where the strike was
not directly connected with the demand for bonus and uncontroverted
evidence established that the strike was a protest against the unreasonable
attitude of the management, in boycotting the conference held by the Labour
Minister, the strike was held to be not unjustified.

2. In the case of workmen of Bihar Fire-works & Potteries Union v. Bihar

fireworks & potteries Ltd-

What happened was that the workmen resorted to one hour token strike by
way of protest against the dismissal of six workmen. A few days later, the
management issued a notice intimating that appropriate deductions would be
made from the wages of those who had taken part in the one hour's token
strike on 22nd January, 1951. The management issued another notice
intimating that further appropriate deductions would be made from the salaries
of those who went on token strike for the second time on 1st February, 1951,
and thereafter the management did make the deductions. The tribunal to
which the matter was referred held both the token strikes as 'frivolous and
unjustified' and the striking workmen, therefore, were not entitled to wages for
the period of the token strikes.

The Appellate Tribunal, to which the matter was referred on appeal, observed that
the
strikes were not illegal as they did not contravene the provisions of Section 22 and
23. It was held by the Appellate Tribunal that the strike cannot be said to be
unjustified unless the reasons for it are absolutely perverse and unsustainable.
The awards of the tribunal was set aside and it was directed that deductions
made from the workmen's wages should be paid back to them.
Payment of Wages during strike-

In Cropton Greaves Ltd. v. Workmen, it was held that in order to entitle the
workmen to wages for the period of strike, the strike should be legal and justified.
Whether particular strike is justified or not is a question of fact, which has to be judged
in the light of the fact and circumstances of each case. The use of force, coercion,
violence or acts of sabotage resorted to by the workmen during the strike period
which was legal and justified would disentitle them to wages for strike period.

For details, refer to case: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1541621/

With regard to the issue of payment of wages during a strike period there has been a
body of decisions by adjudicators. In the recent years arguments are put forth for and
against the award of strike pay in context of the circumstances leading to each
dispute. There had been no uniform trend but there is a gradual emergence of a body
of principles that has guided the adjudicators, Industrial Tribunals in deciding the
issue of strike pay.The board determining principle is no work - no wage.

- The first and foremost important consideration taken into account by the
Adjudicators, Industrial Tribunals in deciding the issue of payment of wages during
a period of strike. If the strike is found to be illegal, the strikers would have no
claim for pay during the period of strike.

- The next consideration is was the strike Justified. There will be circumstances
in which a strike may be justified and a concerted action alone might bring
about the redress of a genuine grievance and in such cases the strikers are
entitled, to wages during the strike period.

- The another consideration taken by the adjudicators while adjudicating the

strike pay is was the strike occasioned by an unfair labour practice by the
employer. If the employer commits an unfair labour practice, the workers are
entitled to strike pay.

The following case law helps us to know as to when a strike pay is awarded and
under what circumstances a striker is entitled for strike pay.

It was in the case of Mahalaxmi Cotton Mills v. Their Workmen,

the appellate Tribunal held that the right to get pay for the period of the strike
depends on the question whether the strike was legal or illegal. But however this
reasoning has been rejected by Mukherjee J. in Golaghat Zilla Chah Mazdoor Sangh v.
Hautley Tea Estate. It was decided in the case of United Commercial Bank Ltd., v.
A.C.Kakkar and Others that workmen who have gone on illegal strike are not entitled to
wages for the period of strike. The
Workmen may have their fundamental right to do work and withhold it at their
pleasure and they are free to choose their own time to launch a strike but this right
has nothing to do with the right to get wages during the period of strike. Ordinarily
they are not supposed to be compensated for any loss that may be sustained by them
during strike period. The strike being deliberate act on the part of workmen they must
be prepared to take all the consequences arising out of it. The workmen have no right
to wages for the period of a strike when the strike though not illegal is unjustified.
Ordinarily upon failure of a conciliation proceeding, the workmen must wait for
reasonable time to enable the government to make reference of a dispute for
adjudication.

West Bengal Flour Mills a Mazdoor congress v. Hooghly Flour Mills Co., Ltd., instead,
they straight away go on strike the strike is unjustified and they have no right to
wages for the strike period.

However, when a lock-out declared by the employer is unjustified, the workmen are
entitled to their full wages for the whole period of the lockout.

For details, refer: http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/10436/12/12_chapter

%205.pdf

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/98194030/
 CONCLUSION
The right to strike is not fundamental or absolute right in India in any special and
common law, whether any undertaking is industry or not.

Whether the strike is justified or unjustified is a question of fact to be determined on

the fact and circumstances of each case. Justifiability of a strike would depend upon
several factors such as:

(i) Were the demands of the workmen genuine or were reasonable or inspired
by an oblique motive
(ii) Were the demands fair and reasonable
(iii) Did the workers try a less drastic method before going on a strike etc?

The conduct of the employer is also a relevant and important factor in resolving the
question of justification or otherwise of a strike. A strike may be held to be justified if
it was occasioned by the employment of unfair practices by the employer or may be
held to be unjustified if it resorted to despite employer’s willingness to settle the
dispute through conciliation, unjustified where the employer decided to closed down
the undertaking

Every dispute between an employer and employee has to take into consideration the
third dimension, viz. the interest of the society as whole. Recently Supreme Court
held that if the strike is illegal then the employer have right to take action against the
workers or employees who had taken part in the strike.
 RECOMMENDATIONS
We strongly believe that right to strike should be treated not just as a statutory right
but a fundamental right of workers. The recent decisions of the Supreme Court have
come in the context of widespread attack on labor rights which is a result amongst
other things of the neo liberal demands of the IMF and World Bank at the instance of
transnational corporations. The scales of power are structurally loaded
overwhelmingly in favor of employers. Employees are by and large at the mercy of
the employers and at times strike is the only effective tool they have to pursue their
demands and seek dignity.

However, every right comes with its own duties. Most powerful rights have more
duties attached to them. Today, in each country of globe whether it is democratic,
capitalist, socialist, give right to strike to the workers. But this right must be the
weapon of last resort because if this right is misused, it will create a problem in the
production and financial profit of the industry. This would ultimately affect the
economy of the country. Today, most of the countries, especially India, are
dependent upon foreign investment and under these circumstances it is necessary that
countries who seeks foreign investment must keep some safeguard in their respective
industrial laws so that there will be no misuse of right of strike.

What should be recognized is that workers do not go on strike at the drop of a hat.
Strike is only a measure of last resort. The general impression that strikes are
overwhelmingly responsible for loss of man days is a myth. All reports including
official studies show that many more days are lost because of lockouts and closures.
One can also have a debate about weather forcible picketing of a general nature can
be permitted, violence can be resorted to, etc. But these at the highest would be what
are termed as 'reasonable restrictions' on the fundamental right to strike and cannot
be used to negate the fundamental right altogether. Also it is our recommendation
that in this day of ‘Outsourcing’ when the management is increasingly using as a
trump card, the power of trade union is even more limited but at the same time, the
trade union needs to realize that strikes is not the way to get their demand fulfilled.
Only the need of the hour is classified as a ‘legal strike’.

It is our view that the Supreme Court would instead of condemning strikes come out
strongly against closures and lockouts. On the other hand, every day of strike for an
employee means losing out the wages for the family for that day. Nobody goes on
strike without any reason. They do it only because all other options have ceased to exist.
Ultimately a strike is nothing else but a cry of exasperation at the working conditions.
It is nothing else but an exercise of freedom of speech and expression.
 REFERENCES
1. P.L. Malik’s Handbook of Labour and Industral Law, 17th Edition
2. https://indiankanoon.org/
3. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/dispute.htm
4. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in
5. http://www.lawteacher.net/
6. http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/24797/Workforce+Management/Right+to+Strike+
Under+Industrial+Dispute+Act+1947
7. http://indiatogether.org/combatlaw/vol2/issue6/strike.htm
8. http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv9n2/strike.htm
9. https://www.marxists.org/archive/glading/1930/07/x01.htm
10. https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/periodic
als/labour_monthly/1928/07/india.htm
11. Hand and class notes