A report on Legal Aspects and related study of

“STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS”

Prepared by Jariwala Chintan Bipinchandra 2013PGP166- section A

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, INDORE

Feb. 2014
Table of Contents
Summary: ..........................................................................
.............................................................. 1 Strikes and
lockouts: .........................................................................
.............................................. 1 Introduction and basic
issues.............................................................................
.......................... 1 Important
Laws: .............................................................................
............................................. 2 Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 ..............................................................................
.................... 2 Study and
Evaluation: .......................................................................
.......................................... 4
Definitions: ......................................................................
........................................................ 4 Legality of strikes or
lockouts: .........................................................................
....................... 5 Justification of a strike or a
lockout............................................................................
............. 7 Payment of wages and compensation for the loss to
business ................................................ 7 “Right to
strike” ...........................................................................
............................................... 9
Conclusion: .......................................................................
............................................................ 10
Bibliography: .....................................................................
........................................................... 10
Summary:
With a labour force of about 500 million, India is second only to China in this
respect. The study tries to evaluate the efficacy of Indian labour laws with
respect to strikes and lockouts. As per the labour bureau, GOI, the number of
strikes has dropped from 295 in 2002 to 237 in 2012. However, number of man-days
lost has increased from 9,664,537 to 11,690,606 (about 32473 years). The number of
workers affected due to or involved in strikes, lockouts, retrenchment and closure
stands more than 1 million (one in every 500), as of 2012. This seems to be a huge
of matter of concern, for a country like India which is trying to boost its
manufacturing and service sectors in coming years. With the help of a few cases, I
will present my study on some of the pertaining acts.

Strikes and lockouts:

Introduction and basic issues
On 14th November, 1152 BC, artisans of Royal Necropolis at Deir el-Medina (Modern
day Egypt), under the rule of Pharaoh Ramses III, walked off from their duty as
they were supposedly not provided with shelter and food. The Egyptians later gave
in on their demands. This marked the first ever recorded event in the history which
can be termed as a “strike”. Ever since then, the industries have seen numerous
violent, non-violent, stay-in, sympathetic, work-torules, tools-down, pens-down and
many other forms of strikes. Strikes and lockouts are one of the most malignant
tools in the weaponry of employees and employers to get their demands fulfilled.
Generally due to such events, the employees, the company, the industry and the
nation loses more than what might have been called for. Strikes cause an
interruption in normal work flow of a company, which not only hinders its
production and hence profits, but also creates problems in delivery schedule and
business commitments. In common parlance, strikes hampers the credibility and
perception of a company in its customer/vendor market. On the other hand, lockouts
may disrupt the inflow wages for workmen most of whom live on marginal wages earned
on daily basis. For these labors a loss of a single days pay might lead to a
considerable impact on daily life. Some of the critical issues related to strikes
and lockouts that have posed a matter of concern in India’s industrialization are
as follows: The biggest issue is to know whether a strike or a lockout is justified
in the very first place. Issues related to unfair labour practices, and improper
compensation etc. should be resolved through tribunals, and courts; hence, it is
important to decide whether going on strike or declaring a lockout should be, in
any condition, legal or not? Is right to strike or lockout a part of right to
‘freedom of association’? Is it a part of demonstrative act in freedom of speech.
Hence, can a strike be illegal? Different types of strikes have different impacts
on business. Is there then a need for different sections of law pertaining each of
these strikes? How to decide whether a strike or a lockout is/was for a justifiable
reason or not? Even if a strike or a lockout is found to be for a justified reason,
should it be considered legal, if it has created a considerable negative impact on
parties not involved? Is a lockout as a consequence to a strike or a strike as a
consequence to a lockout, legal? Does the legality of the former matter while
deciding on the legality of latter? Jariwala Chintan, PGP, IIM-I Page 1
Should there be a prior notice mentioning a possibility of a future strike or a
lockout? If yes, then what should be a proper time-frame? Also, should there be
necessity to resolve the issues as soon as possible, once a notice is received by
any party? What is the role of a trade union in a strike and should an individual’s
opinion subside against the decision of the union? If the strike or lockout is
found to be illegal, who should then pay for the loss of wages and loss of
business? What should be the penalty for an illegal strike and lockouts, and should
it remain same throughout industries, or depend upon the pay scale of employees in
case of a lockout and loss to company in case of a strike? All these and many other
issues are to be taken care of for betterment of the relation between industry and
labour unions.

Important Laws:
Some of the important laws governing the cases of strikes and lockouts are as
follows: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 • Section 2 states the definition of
“strike” as 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. It states the definition of “lockout” as temporary dosing of a
place of employment, or the suspension of work, or the refusal by an employer to
continue to employ any number of persons employed by him. Sub-section (3) of
section 10: Where an industrial dispute has been referred to a Board,[Labor Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal] under this section, the appropriate Government may
by order prohibit the continuance of any strike or lock-out in connection with such
dispute which may be in existence on the date of the reference. Sub-section (3A) of
section 10A: Where an industrial dispute has been referred to arbitration and the
appropriate government is satisfied that the persons making the reference represent
the majority of each party, the appropriate government may, within the time
referred to in sub-section (3) (one month), issue a notification in such manner as
maybe prescribed; and when any such notification is issued, the employers and
workmen who are not parties to the arbitration agreement but are concerned in the
dispute, shall be given an opportunity of presenting their case before the
arbitrator or arbitrators. Sub-section (4A) of section 10A: Where an industrial
dispute has been referred to arbitration and a notification has been issued under
sub-section (3A), the appropriate government may, by order, prohibit the
continuance of any strike or lock-out in connection with such dispute which maybe
in existence on the date of the reference. Section 22 states the clauses applicable
to prohibit employees and employers of public utility service companies (def. of
public utility service as per section 2) from going on strike and lockout.
According to sub-section (1) and (2) of section 22, No employee or employer of a
public utility service shall go on strike or declare lockout,

a) Without giving a prior notice of strike or lockout to employer or employee,

respectively, within six week period prior to strike or lockout., or Jariwala
Chintan, PGP, IIM-I Page 2
b) within 14 days period after issuing any 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. 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, the number of
such notices received or given on that day. • Section 23 states the clauses
applicable to prohibit employees and employers of any industrial establishment from
going on strike and lockout. It says that, No employee or employer of any
industrial establishment shall go on strike or declare lockout, conclusion of such
proceedings;

a) during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a Board and seven days
after the b) during the pendency of proceedings before a Labor Court, Tribunal or
National Tribunal and
two months, after the conclusion of such proceedings;

c) during the pendency of arbitration proceedings before an arbitrator and two

months after the
conclusion of such proceedings, where a notification has been issued under sub-
section (3A) of section l0A (Industrial Disputes Act 1947);

d) 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.

• Section 24: A strike or lock-out shall be illegal if(i) it is commenced or

declared in contravention of section 22 or section 23; or (ii) it is continued in
contravention of an order made under sub-section (3) of section 10 or sub-section
(4A) of Section 10A. Where a strike or lock-out in pursuance of an industrial
dispute has already commenced and is in existence at the time of the reference of
the dispute to a Board, an arbitrator, Labor Court, Tribunal or National 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 Act or the continuance thereof was not prohibited under
sub-section(3) of section 10 or sub-section (4A) of section 10A. 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 25: No person shall knowingly expend or apply any money in direct
furtherance or
support of any illegal strike or lock-out.

• Section 26 states the penalty which shall be levied on anyone for going on
illegal strike or
declaring illegal lock out. The penalty can be imprisonment up to one month, and/or
a fine of rupees fifty, in case of a strike; and rupees one thousand, in case of a
lockout.

Jariwala Chintan, PGP, IIM-I

Page 3
Apart from these, the following acts also contains important laws governing cases
of strikes and lockouts, Trade Unions Act, 1926 Many other state government acts on
industrial disputes and unfair labour practices.

Study and Evaluation:

Labour laws in India have proved to be more of an encumbering in nature than
facilitating. The main reason for this being a lack of clarity, in definition and
in sections deciding legality of issues. The same goes with laws pertaining to
strikes and lockouts. We will evaluate each of the above section using cases for
reference. Definitions: The definition of strike and lockout as per section 2,
talks about any person working in an “industry”. However, the definition of
industry as mentioned in section 2(j), says that ‘it means any business, trade,
undertaking, manufacture or calling of employees and then goes on to say that it,
includes any calling, services employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or
avocation or workmen.’ The definition has been amended in section 2(j) of
Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982, with a more pragmatic, comprehensive and
realistic definition. The following case shows the importance of the definition of
“Industry” in case of labour disputes and strikes/lockouts: Appellants: Secretary,
Madras Gymkhana Club Employees' Union Vs Respondent: Management of the Gymkhana
Club, October, 1967 The employees of Madras Gymkhana Club asked the management for
a bonus, which was denied and the case was taken up in the Supreme Court of India.
The court, on 3rd October, 1967 held that the management of Madras Gymkhana Club
was not liable to pay bonus to its workmen, as the club, as per the definition of
“Industry” section 2, ID Act, 1947, was not an industry. As per the court, the
respondent is a non-proprietary members' club. It is organized on a vast scale with
multifarious activities providing a venue for sports and games, and facilities for
recreation, entertainment and for catering of food and refreshment. Guests are
admitted but on the invitation of members. It has 194 employees with a wage bill
between one lakh and two lakh rupees. As per the definition, Industry means any
‘trade, business, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers’, and neither of
these is being carried out by respondents. Hence, no charge of Industrial dispute
can be levied as the respondent is not an Industry. The above case apparently gives
a clear idea about limitations of the connotation of Industry, which may not
include services rendered by house-maids, servants, professional occupations like
doctors, lawyers etc., employment of teachers, and so on. This might lead to a lack
of interest on the part of employees for working in such establishments. The
amendment in 1982, seems to have amplified the definition of industry, but there
still needs a more clarity on the issue. Various other cases like State Of U.P and
Ors. vs Jai Bir Singh on 5 May, 2005; State Of Gujarat and Ors. vs Pratamsingh
Narsinh Parmar on 31 January, 2001 have shown a scope of more inclusive definition
of industry in cases of labour disputes and strikes. In both the above cases, the
difficulty was to decide whether a state run “Welfare Scheme” or “Welfare program”
falls under the scope of industry, while deciding on labour disputes. Jariwala
Chintan, PGP, IIM-I Page 4
The definition of strike emphasis on acting together and not on pre-planning. The
parties who resort to strike, may come to a common understanding without any formal
agreement or consultations but nevertheless as per the definition the action must
be “collectively combined on the basis of spirit de corpse” by the community of
demands and interest with a view to compel employer. However, to grant to their
demands of wages, allowances, hours of work holidays, bonus and the like, the
length or duration of the "concerted" action is immaterial. The definition
encompasses relatively simple cases of "cessation of work", "refusal to continue to
work" or "refusal to accept employment". While negotiating for settlement of an
industrial dispute, workmen may resort to the use of instruments of economic
coercion to get their points of view accepted by the management. A difficult
question arises when workmen deviate from traditional methods. The definition of
strikes fails to differentiate between various forms of strike such as pen-down,
tool-down, go-slow, work-to rules, etc. A stay-in or pen-down strike may even be a
case of tress passing, similarly, a go-slow strike doesn’t actually count as strike
as per definition. In most of the other countries, there has been a special mention
of such strikes and its forms. Legality of strikes or lockouts: whether a strike is
legal or illegal has been clearly stated in section 24 of ID Act, 1947 in
accordance with section 22 and 23. However, the main issue remains whether lockout
of employment as a result of a strike, justified. Also, there are cases where
illegal strikes are not convicted as they are found to be justifiable. Petitioner:
The Punjab National Bank, ltd. Vs. Respondent: its workmen, Sept. 1959 On 3rd
April, 1951, Mr.Sabharwal, a typist (and secretary of PNB employee union) at PNB
applied for a leave of seven days which was rejected by the management. Mr.
Sabharwal however took the leave anyways and absented himself from the job on said
days. On his return, he was handed a charge-sheet for absence from duty, which he
refused to accept. It was later delivered to him via registered post and on 17th
April he was suspended from his job. The suspension was immediately followed by a
pen-down strike in PNB’s head office at Delhi, following which the bank suspended
60 other employees. This lead to general strike across many of the bank’s branches
in Delhi and U.P.As a result, the bank asked the employees to report to their duty
by 23rd April, and stated that a failure to comply would be taken as voluntary
cessation of the job. On 24th April, another notice was issued stating that the
strikers who failed to comply by the previous notice are no more employees to the
bank. On 30th April, The labour commissioner of U.P. asked the workmen of PNB to
immediately take back the strikes and continue with their job. Hence, the strike
was taken back on 1st May with 813 workmen joining back. However, 10 employees
reported back on 3rd May with a reason that the said information didn’t reach their
branch by the said time. The bank decided to dismiss them along with 140 more.
These 140 employees were identified by response to a circular sent by the bank’s
head offices to each of its strike affected branch, asking the branch manager to
list down all the employees which they felt were not suitable for re-instatement.
With the intervention of Prime minister of India, the case on 2nd July, 1951 was
referred to industrial tribunal. The main questions which lay in front of the
tribunal were: i. ii. Was the strike which started on 20th April, justifiable and
more importantly legal? Was the refusal to reinstate 150 employees back by the
bank, a case of illegal lockout and hence, invalid? Page 5

Jariwala Chintan, PGP, IIM-I

iii.

What should be the compensation for loss of wages for 814 employees who were
reinstated and 150 who were dismissed? Who should compensate for the loss of
business in case the strike is found to be legal?

The workmen appealed that the bank was trying to victimize the president, V.P.,
secretary and other higher authorities of the federation (union) with sole purpose
of teaching a lesson to its employees. On the other hand the bank appealed that the
strike itself was illegal, and hence the lockout is justified, along with the fact
that the dismissed 150 employees were guilty of “unpardonable violence,
intimidation and coercion”. The tribunal finally gave the judgment on 2nd Feb, 1952
in favor of the bank stating that, as proceeding of a previous case (1950) of
industrial dispute between the federation of employees and the bank was pending at
arbitration, the said strike was illegal as per section 23(b) and 24 of ID Act,
1947. The tribunal further stated that as per section 24, the said lockout of 150
employees hence, can’t be deemed as illegal as it was a consequence of an illegal
strike. The tribunal hence, gave a judgment that bank can refuse to reinstate the
said 150 employees, however on the basis of compassionate grounds, the bank was
asked to pay a compensation to the 150 employees for their dismissal. On further
appeal of the employees the matter was taken up to labour appellate tribunal, which
tried to answer the question that “Does a mere participation of an employee in an
illegal strike gives a right to the employer to dismiss him/her?”The appellate
tribunal said that the dismissal of 150 employees by the bank was illegal as per
section 33, of ID Act, 1947 which states that the employer cannot dismiss its
employees on charge of an illegal strike till the case is referred to and decided
by a tribunal. Hence, On 4th January, 1955, the appellate tribunal asked the bank
to immediately pay a compensation to 150 employees for their loss of wage and to
reinstate 136 of the 150 employees. 14 employees were denied of reinstatement on
grounds of violence and intimidation In 1958, the bank further made two civil
appeals against reinstatement of 126 employees of federation, and 10 employees of
union (U.P.) respectively, based on charges of trespassing, as the strike was a
“pen-down” strike and hence, the employees occupied their seat without doing any
work, and refused to vacate the office on the orders of the bank. The bank further
presented evidence of the witnesses (its reinstated employees) to violence and
intimidation of the said 136 employees. The 14 employees, whom the tribunal denied
reinstatement, too filed an appeal. The above case which started in July, 1951
continued till September, 1959 and was referred to the Supreme Court. However,
recently the department of labour under GoI has made the banking industry a “public
service utility” as per amendments in definition in section 2 of ID Act, 1947.
Hence, under the current law employees would be needed to give atleast 14 days
prior notice as per section 22, making a “lightening strike” completely unjustified
and illegal. Some of the learning I found through this case was that, i. The
definition of a strike must have a clearer stance regarding pen-down, stay-in, and
other different forms of strike. ii. The laws should have a clear mention about the
reinstatement and compensation policy of the employees participating in a strike
both illegal and legal. iii. According to section 24, a strike is illegal if there
is an ongoing case pending between the employer and its employees. But since such a
case might last for a long period, does it Jariwala Chintan, PGP, IIM-I Page 6
leave no choice for the employees, in the mean time, to protest other than going
for an appeal. iv. And the biggest question of all remains, how can one decide
whether a strike is justified or not, and what about the loss to the company if a
strike is found to be illegal. The answer to this and many other questions related
to strikes and lockouts are being sought through better labour laws and amendments
in coming times. Justification of a strike or a lockout: The bigger question has
always been that, what justifies an act of strike or lockout. What justifies the
period or duration of strike. Is there a need for “right to strike”, or should
strikes and lockouts be considered as a bane to industry. The law gives no
information in this regard. Although as per section 22 and 23, it is clear that
strikes and lockouts are not always illegal. Hence, given the condition every
employee and employer has a right to strike. But, as we have seen in many cases
strikes and lockouts can get way more violent than anticipated. In case if it gets
violent, should the violence be then weighed in while deciding the justification of
strikes? Section 33 and 33A of ID Act, 1947 answers this question somewhat, but not
completely. There needs to more amendments in ID Act to make the labour-industry
relations more formal and long lasting. In the case of 'Dabir (Et. S.K. Burman)
Pvt. Ltd., v Their Workmen, it was held that justification of strike depends upon
(a) the conduct of the employer also, the employee which includes provocation on
the part of employer by high, handed action and unsustainable reasons for the
strike on the part of workmen (b) the nature of the strike whether the peaceful of
violent and (c) whether the strike was resorted to after exhausting all the means
of redress. According to me, some of the conditions under which a strike or a
lockout is justified are: If the employer denies the right to employees for forming
a union. It should be launched only for economic demands of workmen like basic pay,
dearness allowance, bonus, provident fund, gratuity, leave and holidays etc., which
are the primary objects of a trade union. • The economic demands should be prima
facie reasonable. • The demands should not be raised frivolously or on ulterior
reasons. • If some demands are not referred to adjudication or arbitration by the
employers. A strike can be unjustified if the reasons for it are absolutely
perverse and unsustainable. • • Payment of wages and compensation for the loss to
business: The final topic I would like discuss, which might need some light in ID
Act, 1947 is that of compensation or payment of wages for the period of strike or
lockout. In thousands of cases of strikes, the courts have seen through years, the
decision of payment of wages has been based completely on the opinion of the judges
on the matter. There seems to be no written rule or law, which clearly specifies
anything related to this matter. In T. S. Kelawala vs. The bank of India, the
courts without even hearing whether the strike was legal or illegal and justified
or unjustified, gave the decision that under any condition, the employees are not
entitled to wages for the duration of strike. However, in cases like Crompton
greaves ltd. vs. its employees and Churakulam Tea Estate vs. its workmen, the
courts gave a decision in the favour of employees. General principles which are
followed while deciding payment of wages are:

Jariwala Chintan, PGP, IIM-I

Page 7
•

• •

• •

Employees are denied payment of wages if the strike is found to be illegal.

(however, illegal as it may be, but if the strike is proved to be justified, courts
can ask for a compensation) Employees may or may not be entitled to receive wages
in case of legal strikes, depending upon the justifiability of the act of strike
Employees are denied payment of wages for a lockout, which is initiated in response
an illegal strike (however, in case of an illegal, yet justified strikes, courts
can ask for a compensation) Employees are entitled to wages in case of an illegal
lockout. (however, in case of an illegal, yet justified lockouts, courts can deny
payment wages) Employees are denied payment of wages in case of a legal and
justified lockout. Petitioner: Syndicate Bank vs respondent: K.Umesh Nayak on 19
March, 1994 On 10th April, 1989 a memorandum of settlement was signed by the Indian
Banks' Association and the All Indian Bank Employees' Unions including the National
Confederation of Bank Employees as a resolution for the industrial dispute between
the two parties. It mentioned a wage hike and other certain service condition for
the employees at the said bank. The bank however, did not implement the said
changes as per the settlement and as a result on 22nd June, the employee union sent
a telex to the bank management calling upon implementation of the said changes
without any further loss of time. In response to this the bank replied on 27th June
that it was required to obtain the Government's approval for granting the said
extra benefits and that it was making efforts to obtain the Government's approval
as soon as possible. Employees and the bank reiterated the same conversation again
on 24th July, this time the employees warning the bank of a possible future strike
on 8th August, if the bank fails to fulfill their demands, but no strike took place
on 8th Aug. even as the bank failed to fulfill the demands. On 18th August, the
employee union wrote to the Bank that the settlements signed were without any
precondition that they were to be cleared by the Government and hence the Bank
should implement the settlement without awaiting the Government's permission. The
Federation also, on the same day, wrote to the Bank calling its attention to the
provisions of Rule 58.4 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (the
'Rules') and requesting it to forthwith forward copies of the settlements to the
functionaries mentioned in the said rule. On 23rd August the bank reiterated the
same that the approval of government was the reason of holding the demands. The
matter was then taken for conciliation on 26th September upon the intervention of
state labour commissioner, but no avail. Finally, on 1st Oct., the union gave their
final warning of future strike commencing from 16th October, The strike took place
as warned, and matter was taken to the High Court, where, the single judge said
that “as the bank is a public utility service, and as there was a pending decision
of the case at conciliation, the said strike is illegal as per section 22 and 24 of
ID Act, 1947. The judge denied any payment of wages to employees for the day of
strike. Employees however filed a petition saying that there was no case of
industrial dispute whatsoever as the settlement for the said demand had already
arrived in April, and hence the section 22 of ID Act, doesn’t come to play at all.
The judge however dismissed the employees claim citing the T.S. Kelawala case in
which the Supreme court gave the following statement: Page 8

Jariwala Chintan, PGP, IIM-I

“A union has no right or freedom to demonstrate including a sit-in demonstration in
property belonging to others. No one can be allowed his right as to prejudice the
right of another” The employees further appealed to the division bench of High
Court, which gave its decision in favour of the employees citing the fact that
there wasn’t any case of Industrial dispute involved as the demands of the
employees were already been accepted by the bank as per a memorandum and hence,
section 22 cannot be applied. Hence, the bank was asked to pay the wages to the
employees for the day of strike. It further said that the strike was justified in
its entire means and so the payment of wages is unarguable. The case was further
taken to the Supreme Court and statement made by supreme court on the case was:
“The principle of “no work, no pay” will be applicable if employees are purporting
to be present but not performing their duty” The case along with many other similar
cases, displays the ambiguity regarding the payment of wages of employees for the
period of strike. As far as loss of to the company is concerned, the law mentions
as per section 26 of ID Act that illegal strikes are punishable as per the penalty
decided in the section. This makes the employees not liable to any losses to the
employers. This can be seen in the judgment of Rothas Industries v. It’s Union.
However, going further employers can file charges of violence, trespassing and
other against the employees if such is the case.

“Right to strike”
Right to strike is been recently in news as the Union Labour Minister Mallikarjun
Kharge gave a statement against strikes which was not received well by the unions
as well as a few political parties like CPI and others. The main issue is that,
should there be a “right to strike” empowered amongst every labour working in an
industry. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 gives this right, however under some
conditions of legality. In a country like India, which is dependent upon foreign
investments for a good share of future growth, it is necessary that the country who
seeks foreign investment must keep some safeguard in their respective industrial
laws so that there will be no misuse of right of strike. 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. Unlike America, in India right
to strike is not expressly recognized by the law. The trade union Act, 1926 for the
first time gave the laborers a legal framework to form employee union; however it
provided limited right to strike by legalizing certain activities of a registered
trade union. In my opinion, the need for a “right to strike” depends upon the
efficacy of the current labour and industry relations laws, and its impact on the
employers and employees. Citing the current situation I think the laws should be
amended to bring a clearer picture, however, there is no immediate need for a
“right to strike”.

Jariwala Chintan, PGP, IIM-I

Page 9
Conclusion:
Strikes are a matter of protest and during a protest most laborers tend to forget
their responsibilities, their duties and legality of their action. This leads to
violence, trespassing, loss of customers, loss of wages, and many more issues which
are far more destructive than the strike itself. Hence, the Industrial Disputes Act
was made seeking a judgment on these crucial issues. However, as times have passed
the act of strike has evolved, and the laborers now understand the legal scenario
of striking. This has reduced the so called “lightening strikes”, but increased
instances such as pen-down strike, tool-down strike, sit-in strike, and go-slow
strikes. Seeing this and many more issues which have puzzled the courts on many
counts, such as payment of wages, justification of strikes, compensation for loss,
definition of various terms, etc., I feel a need for change in the labour laws. ID
Act, 1947 is one of the pioneers among the labour laws in India. However it has
been subsided on many times by State legislations and state laws like P.U.L.P. Act,
1970. This again creates an ambiguity regarding legality of strike in the minds of
unions while deciding to go on a strike. Hoping for amendments in regards to many
issues, I think strikes and lockouts are just one of the many industrial disputes
that are a bane to the employee-employer relations, and care should be taken while
deciding on such issues. “The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is
the mind of the oppressed.” Steven Biko

Bibliography:
1. Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, Act no. 14 of 1947, 11th March, 1947 2. Trade
Unions Act of 1926, Act no. 16 of 1926, 25th March, 1926 3. Kaushik P.D., Bibek
Debroy, “Reforming the Labour Market”, Academic foundation, 1st
January, 2005, pg. 130-135 4. Padhi P.K., “Labour and Industrial laws”, PHI
learning pvt. Ltd., 24th December, 2011, pg. 83-84 5. Staff reporter, “Judiciary
has no right to ban strike”, The Hindu, Kolkata, 15th February, 2013 6. Shrivastava
Suresh C., “Strikes and lock-outs in India: law and policy”, Central India Law
Quarterly [vol. 4:1] 7. http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1763716/, “ Punjab National
Bank Ltd vs Employees Of The Bank on 10 April, 1953” 8. Vijendra Vikram Singh Paul,
“Right to strike under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947” legalserviceindia(online),
vikrampaul@legalserviceindia.com 9. Ashwin Hemant Raj, “SC's Right to Strike' curbs
fundamental right”, The Times of India, Bangalore, 12th September, 2003 10.
http://www.manupatrainternational.in/supremecourt/1950-1979/sc1967/s670227.htm
“Secretary, Madras Gymkhana Club Employees' Union Vs. Management of the Gymkhana
Club on 3 October, 1967” Jariwala Chintan, PGP, IIM-I Page 10