LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAW ASSIGNMENT

Topic: Strike- Illegal strike- Penalty

Submitted by,
Gouri suresh
Roll no: 32
7/5th BBA LL.B.
 CONTENTS
1. Introduction Page no 3
2. Strike Under ID Act, 1947 Page no 4
3. Classification Of Strikes Page no 5-6
4. Rules Relating To Lawful Strikes Page no 7-8
5. Illegal Strike Under ID Act, 1947 Page no 9-10
6. Punishment And Penalty For Illegal Strike Page no 11-12
7. Common Reasons For Strikes Page no 13
8. Conclusion Page no 14
9. Bibliography Page no 15
 1. INTRODUCTION
The labour laws derive their origin, authority and strength from the provisions of the
Constitution of India. The relevance of the dignity of human labour and the need for
protecting and safeguarding the interest of labour as human beings has been
enshrined in Chapter-III (Articles 16, 19, 23 & 24) and Chapter IV (Articles 39, 41,
42, 43 & 43A) of the Constitution of India keeping in line with the Fundamental
Rights and Directive Principles Of State Policy.
My topic for the assignment is to study about the strikes which is defined under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Normally the use of the English word “strike” is used
to describe work protest or work stoppage caused by the mass refusal of employees
to work. A strike usually takes place in response to employee grievances. During the
18th century when industrial revolutions took place strikes became a common factor.
1n 1842 the demands for fairer wages and condition across many different
industries finally exploded into the first modern General Strike.
Strikes are sometimes used to pressure governments to change policies.
Occasionally, strikes destabilize the rule of a particular political party or ruler; in
such cases, strikes are often part of a broader social movement taking the form of a
campaign of civil resistance.
Section 2 (q) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines a strike is that it 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. In simple words the strike is a weapon used by the workmen as last
resort in the process of collective bargaining.
A strike can be of different type. Sometimes it can also be organized illegally and
sometimes calling for a strike or a protest can result in punishment described under
ID Act, 1947. Through this assignment I look forward studying strikes, illegal strikes,
punishment and various layers of strike prescribed under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
 2. STRIKE UNDER ID ACT, 1947
Section 2 (q) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines a strike is that it 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.
The purpose of a strike by employees is to coerce the employer to concede their
demands. It is an antithesis of lockout. According to J. Hannen ‘strike is a simultaneous
cessation of work on the part of workmen.’ In simple words strike means stoppage of
work by a body of workmen acting in concert with a view to bringing pressure upon
the employer. The workmen must be employed in the industry.
In Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Madras V. Gunaseelan MG (1954 IILLJ 656) the workers of
the company wanted to celebrate the May Day. They requested the employer to declare
that day a holiday. The employees were ready to compensate the loss of work by
working on a Sunday. The company rejected the suggestion and refused to declare the
May Day as a holiday. On the company’s failure to declare May Day as a holiday, the
workers en bloc applied for casual leave. So the question was whether this procedure
resulted in a strike. The full bench held that there was cessation of work or concerted
refusal to work and the action of the employees to apply for casual leave did amount to
strike. The Supreme Court in Northbrooke Jute Company Ltd v. Their Workmen (AIR
1960 S.C. 580) held that when the workmen are not bound do a particular work refusal
to do that work does not amount to a strike, despite the fact their refusal is concerted
or a common understanding.
So section 2 (q) defines a strike as:
 A cessation of work
 By a group of workmen
 Under a common understanding or concerted refusal to work.
 It must be an industry.
 The strikers must be acting in combination.
 The object of the strike must be related to employment/non-employment or the
terms of employment or with the condition of labour of the workmen.
 3. CLASSIFICATION OF STRIKE
Based on the phenomena of strikes around the world, strikes can be categorized into
economic strike, sympathy strike, general strike, token strike, go-slow strike, sit down
strike, hunger strike and wild cat strike etc.
 ECONOMIC STRIKE
Such strike happens due to economic demands like increment of wages and allowances
like house rent allowances, transport allowances, bonus etc.
 SYMPATHY STRIKE
It is intended to extend moral support to striking workmen. They have no demand of
their own. It is a strike within the meaning of the Act. In such strike union or workers
of one industry join the strikes already hailed by other union or workers.
In Kambalingam v. Indian Metallurgical corporation Madras (1946 1 LU 81) the supreme
court observed that when the workers in concert absented themselves out of sympathy
to some cause wholly unrelated to their employment or even in regard to condition of
employment of other workers in service under another management such absence
could not be held as strike. The reason attributable was that essential element of the
intention to use it against the management is conspicuously absent and under such
circumstance the management may take disciplinary action against their absence on
the ground of breach of condition of service.
 GENERAL STRIKE
A general strike where workmen join together for common cause and stay away from
work or can be intended to increase the political pressure in the ruling party by all
unions or members in a region or state.
 TOKEN STRIKE
It is also a kind of general strike. It is for a day or for a few hours. The token strike is
intended to draw attention of employer to any issue.
 GO-SLOW STRIKE/SLOW DOWN STRIKE
Go-slow is not like an ordinary strike. It is misconduct on the part of employees to go
slow strike. Here there is no cessation of work. But there is a slow-down. The purpose
is to reduce production. Go-slow strike is not a strike within the meaning of the act but
a serious misconduct on the part of employees. In Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd v. Jai Singh
(1961-II LLJ 664) the Supreme court held that Go-slow is a dishonest practice. Indian
courts have taken a serious view on the go-slow and refused to interfere with the
punishment inflicted by the employer for this misconduct, so that the coward practice
could be discouraged.
 SIT-DOWN STRIKE
In this case, workers do not absent themselves from their place of work when they are
on strike. They keep control over production facilities. But do not work. Such a strike
is also known as pen down strike or tool down strike. Workers show up to their place
of employment, but they refuse to work. They also refuse to leave, which makes it very
difficult for the employer to defy their union and take the workers places. In June 1998,
all the municipal corporation employees in Punjab observed a pen down strike to
protest against the non-acceptance of their demands by the state government.
 HUNGER STRIKE
In this form of industrial protest, workmen resort to fasting near the workplace in
order to demand the employer to redress their grievances. It will amount to the
meaning of the Act. In Pipraich Sugar Mills Case (AIR 1957.S.C.95) certain employees of
the mill resorted to hunger strike at the residence of the M.D. The court held that the
concerted action amounted to strike.
Bajaj Auto workers-two-day hunger strike
On January 7 and 8 of 2017 the hunger strike was held by workers to protest the
management’s anti-worker and anti-union activities. The strike was called by Viswa
Kalyan Kamgar Sanghatana which had stated that Bajaj Auto had adopted a strategy of
terrorizing and harassing workers. It stated that the union’s active members have been
transferred and issued false charge sheets and show-cause letters. Later, Bajaj Auto
issued a statement regarding the hunger strike called by its workers. It states that “the
facts as contrary to reasons being cited by Viswa Kalyan Kamgar Sanghatana (vkks).
 WILD-CAT STRIKE
Wildcat strike or illegal walkout this is an unauthorized work stoppage in violation of
law and/or an existing bargaining agreement. The most common reason for a wild cat
strike is the result of the union considering some actions to be unjust. In 2004,
advocates went on wildcat strike at civil courts in Bangalore to protest the remarks
allegedly made by an Assistant Commissioner against them.
 4. RULES RELATING TO LAWFUL STRIKE
Right to strike is recognized globally. Article 19 (1) the Constitution of India 1949
guarantees the protection of certain freedoms as Fundamental right. India recognized
strike as a statutory right under Industrial Disputed Act, which came into force on April
1, 1947, India had enacted its first industrial disputes legislation i.e. employer and
workmen disputes Act, 1869 and subsequently Trade Disputes Act, 1929 and rule 81 A
of defense of India Rules.
Section 22 and 23 of the ID Act, 1947 contains provision regarding strikes and lockouts.
Regarding strike, section 22 (1) of the ID Act, 1947 provides that “no person employed
in a public utility service shall go on a strike, in breach of contract-

1. Without giving the employer notice of a strike, as from now on provided, within
six weeks before striking; or
2. Within fourteen days of giving such notice; or
3. Before the expiry of the date of strike specified in any such notice as aforesaid;
or
4. During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer
and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings.
In Mineral Miner Union v. Kudremukh Iron ore Co. Ltd., (1989) 1Lab LJ 227 (karn). 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. It may be noted that if a lockout is already in existence and employees want to
resort to strike, it is not necessary to give notice as is otherwise required. In Sadual
textile Mills v. Their workmen (1958) 2 L.L.J 628 Rajasthan. Certain workmen struck
work as a protest against lay-off and transfer of some workmen from one shift to
another without giving four days’ notice as required by the standing order 23. On these
grounds a question arose whether the strike was justified. The Industrial Tribunal
answered affirmative. Against this a writ petition was preferred in 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.”
Section 22 (1) prohibits going on a strike by the workers except where above
conditions are fulfilled. The issue of notice of strike is mandatory. The date of strike
must be not within 14 days from the date of the notice. There can be no strike on any
day before the date specified in the strike notice. Strike by workmen in violation of
section 22 (1) is illegal.
Section 23 of the ID Act, 1947 lays down certain rules relating to lawful strike. It
imposes general restrictions on declaring strike in breach of contract in both public as
well as non-public utility services in the following circumstances mainly:-

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

The main purpose of this section is to maintain the untroubled and discipline
atmosphere when conciliation, negotiation proceedings are on the process without any
disturbance. This section because of its general nature of prohibition covers all the
strikes irrespective of the subject matter of the disputes pending before the authorities.
It is noteworthy that a conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer is no bar
to strike under section 23.
As held in the case of Ballarpur Collieries Co. v. The Presiding Officer, Central Government
Industrial Tribunal, “ it was held, if a person was employed in public utility services
then, he/she cannot go for a strike without the consent and gathering the procedures
which must be satisfied in the provisions.” In the Ballarpur Collieries Co. v. H Merchant
(1967) 2 LLJ 201 Pat. 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.
 5. ILLEGAL STRIKE UNDER ID ACT, 1947
Illegal strike is a strike in violation of law. Examples of such strike include those that
contravene court orders, do not have authorization from union members, or are
undertaken by certain group of workers, notably police officers, not permitted to go on
strikes. Participation in an illegal strike may face legal sanctions. The effect of an illegal
strike is that the employer can take disciplinary action against the workmen. If a strike
is illegal the party guilty of the illegality is liable to punishment.

Even in the case of illegal strikes, a distinction has been attempted to be made as:-
 Illegal but justified strike
 Illegal and unjustified
It is said that a strike may be illegal but if demands is justifiable, it is illegal but justified.
And if the strike is illegal and the demand is also illegal, followed by violence, it is called
illegal and unjustified. On the other hand if the strike is illegal but resorted in a peaceful
manner (the demand is reasonable) it is called illegal but justified.
In Crompton v. The workmen (1978 S.C.C) it was held that in order to entitle the
workmen to wages for the period of the strike should be legal as well as justified. In
Bata Shoe Company Pvt. Ltd. V. Ganguly, the S.C. observed that “Participation in an illegal
strike may not be necessarily punished with dismissal.”
Section 24 provides that a strike is illegal in contravention of section 22 & 23 is illegal.
1. A strike or a lockout shall be illegal if,
 It is commenced or declared in contravention of section 22 or section 23;
or
 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
provisions of this Act or the continuance thereof was not prohibited under sub
section (3) of section 10 or subsection (4-A) of 10-A
 3. A strike is declared in the consequence of an illegal lockout shall not be deemed
to be illegal.
In M/S Burn & Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (AIR 1959 SC 529), it was laid down that mere
participation in 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 (AIR 1960 SC 160), 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 the
employees to vacate, and, on their refusal to do so, take due steps to suspend them from
the 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.
The Constitutional Bench in Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak decided the matter, the
Supreme Court held that a strike may be illegal if it contravenes the provisions of
section 22, 23 or 24 of the Act or of any other law or the terms of employment
depending upon the facts of the each case. Similarly, a strike may be justified or
unjustified depending upon the several factors such as the service conditions of the
workmen, the nature of demands of the workmen, the cause led to strike, the urgency
of the cause or demands of the workmen, the reasons for not resorting to the dispute
resolving machinery provided by the Act or the contract of the employment or the
service rules provided for a machinery to resolve the dispute, resort to strike or lock-
out as a direct is prima facie unjustified. This is, particularly so when the provisions of
the law or the contract or the service rules in that behalf are breached. For then, the
action is also illegal.
RIGHT OF EMPLOYER TO COMPENSATION FOR LOSS CAUSED BY ILLEGAL STRIKE-

In Rothas Industries v. It’s Union (AIR 1976 SC 425) the Supreme Court held that the
remedy for illegal strike has to be sought exclusively in section 26 of the Act. The award
granting compensation to employer for loss of business though illegal strike is illegal
because such compensation is not a dispute within the meaning of section 2 (k) of the
Act.
 6. PUNISHMENT AND PENALTY FOR ILLEGAL STRIKE
In the process of collective bargaining the right of the workmen to go on strike and that
the right of the employer to declare lockout in the establishment are the legitimate
weapons which are given legal recognition under the modern Industrial law. However,
in order to put a check to the chaotic conditions, the modern industrial legislation has
a regulated these rights in order to achieve the goal of harmonious Industrial Relations
between the workmen and employers. The ID Act of 1947 has therefore provided
certain penalties which can be imposed upon the defaulting workmen and employers
who resort to illegal strikes or lockouts. Chapter IV containing Section 26 to 31 of the
ID Act of 1947 provides for the punishment and penalties for illegal strikes and
lockouts.
a. Penalty for commencing and continuing illegal strikes and lock-outs:
Section 26 imposes punishment for illegal strikes and lockouts-
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.
2. Any employer who commences continues or otherwise acts in furtherance of,
a lock-out which is illegal under this act, shall be punishable for a term which
may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees, or with both.
b. Penalty for instigation
It is not only commencing and continuing an illegal strike and lockout which have
been made punishable but punishment for instigating or inciting strikes or
lockouts is also made punishable under the said Act.
Section 27 imposes punishment for instigation;
1. Any person who instigates or incites others to take part in, or otherwise acts
in furtherance of, a strike or lock-out which is illegal under this Act, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months, or
with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
c. Penalty for giving financial aid to illegal strike:
Section 28 imposes punishment for giving financial aid;
1. Any person who knowingly expends or applies any money in direct
furtherance or support of any illegal strike or lockout shall be punishable with
 imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Supreme Court in Bank of India v. Kelawala “held that where the contract or standing
orders or the service rules regulations are silent on the issue of workers entitlement to
wages during the strike period, the management has the power to deduct wages for
absence from duty when the absence is concerted action on the part of the employees
and the absence is not disputed, irrespective of the fact whether the strike was legal or
illegal. There is no statutory provision either in civil law or in industrial law prescribing
payment of strike wages. Strike pay cannot, therefore, be claimed as a legal right.
 7. COMMON REASONS FOR STRIKE
Strikes generally occur in industries due to disputes between employees and
employers, employees and employees or among employers and employers mostly
due to the following issues;
 Working hours
 Working conditions
 Salary, incentives etc.
 Time payment of wages
 Reduction in salary/wages
 Issues related to minimum wages
 Leave/holidays
 Dissatisfaction with the company policy
 PF, ESI, Profit sharing etc.
 Retrenchment of workmen and closure of establishment
 Wrongful discharge or dismissal of workmen

 Kingfisher Airlines employees were on strike for several days for not paying
salary for almost period of 7 months. Strike took many turns and aggregated
subsequently employees agitations came on to roads as demonstrations
against non-payment of salaries. At worst, wife of an employee of this airlines
had committed suicide due to unbearable financial crisis caused due to non-
payment of wages for months to her husband.

 Chennai, March, 2012: nurses employed at different hospitals did strike for
almost 7 days against hospital managements for their demands. Hundreds of
nurses, several of them junior staff, have struck work across major private
hospitals in the city Apollo, Fortis, Malabar and Madras Medical Mission-
demanding a hike in basic salary to Rs. 15000/- besides annual increments and
leave benefits.
 8. CONCLUSION

The right to strike is not fundamental or absolute in India in any special and common
law, whether any undertaking is industry or not. This is conditional or qualified right
only available after certain pre-conditions are fulfilled. If the Constitution maker had
intended to confer on the citizen as a fundamental right the right to go on strike, they
should have expressly said so. On the basis of the assumption that right to go on
strike has not expressly been conferred under the Article 19 (1) (c) of the
Constitution. Further the observation in Corpus Juris Secundum that the right to
strike is relative right which can be exercised with due regards to the right of others.
Neither the common law nor the 14th amendment to the federal constitution confers
an absolute right to strike. It was held in the case that the strike as a weapon has to
be used sparingly for redressal of urgent and pressing grievances when no means
are available or when available means are failed to resolve it. It has to be resorted to,
to compel the other party to the dispute to see the justness of the demand. It is not
to be utilized to work hardship to the society at large so as to strengthen the
bargaining power. Every dispute between an employee and employer has to take
into consideration the third dimension, viz. the interest of society as a whole. (AIR
1994 SC319) 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.
 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Labour & Industrial Laws ( academy of legal publications)
 Mondaq
 Indian kanoon
 Indian laws info
 iblog readers