This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Section 2 (q) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 -
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 have been so employed to continue to work or to accept employment
Lockout is a weapon in the hands of employer similar
to that of strike, used for compelling the persons employed by him to accept his terms or conditions of or affecting employment. In a lockout the employer shut down his place of business as a result of reprisal or as a instrument of coercion.
Prohibition of Strikes & Lockout This section does not absolutely prohibited strikes but there are certain requirements to be fulfilled before restoring strike or lockout This is to protect sudden outbreak of strikes and lockouts.Section 22. .
as hereinafter provided. within six weeks before striking. or .Section 22(1) No person employed in a public utility service shall go on strike. or (b) Within fourteen days of giving such notice. in breach of contract (a) Without giving to the employer notice of strike.
or (d) During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings. .Section 22(1) cont… (c) Before the expiry of the date of strike specified in any such notice as aforesaid.
as hereinafter provided. in breach of contract (a) Without giving to the employer notice of strike. or (b) Within fourteen days of giving such notice. or . within six weeks before striking.Section 22(2) No person employed in a public utility service shall go on lockout.
Section 22(2) cont… (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. .
The employer shall send information to specified authority on the day when strike or lockout is declared .Section 22(3) NO notice of strike is necessary where there is already in existence a lockout in the public utility service and vice versa.
.Section 22(4)referred to in sub-section (1) shall The notice of strike be given by such number of persons to such person or persons and in such manner as may be prescribed. Section 22(5) • The notice of lock-out referred to in subsection (2) shall be given in such manner as may be prescribed.
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. he shall within five days.Section 22(6) If on any day an employer receives from any person employed by him any such notices as are referred to in sub-section (1) or gives to any persons employed by him any such notices as are referred to in sub-section (2). .
. (a) During the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a Board and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings.Section 23 General prohibition of strikes and lock-outs No workman who is employed in any industrial establishment shall go on strike in breach of contract and no employer of any such workman shall declare a lock-out.
where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3A) of section 10A. or] . Tribunal or National Tribunal] and two months. after the conclusion of such proceedings [(bb) During the pendency of arbitration proceedings before an arbitrator and two months after the conclusion of such proceedings. (b) During the pendency of proceedings before 1[a Labour Court.
(c) 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. .
.M. GADHE & ORS.B.ETC V. LTD . GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENT PVT. ETC.Case U. G.
Features of case Appellants call in question the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court allowing the Special Civil Applications filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer') The respondent had filed the applications questioning correctness of the award dated 31.2004 passed by the Labour Court By the said award the workmen were directed to be reinstated in service with continuity but without back wages .12.
In the year 1989-1990. Eventually. there were certain disputes between the management and the employees disciplinary action against the striking employees.History of case Respondent is involved in providing public utility services. eight workmen were dismissed from the service .
1999. Earlier once the references were disposed of by the Labour Court by an award dated 23.04. The workmen concerned were directed to be reinstated in service with full back-wages from the date of dismissal till reinstatement. The employer challenged the award Remanded back to the Labour Court by High court .
After remand. It was held that so far as the strike is concerned it was established that the workmen were not justified in going on strike. The Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted was legal and proper. the Labour Court took up the proceedings afresh. The question relating to legality of the departmental proceedings was examined first.2004. .12. but the Labour Court found that some of the charges were not proved. recorded the evidence and passed the awards on 31.
Accordingly. The High Court held that once the charges have been proved. the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the quantum of punishment. the Labour Court had held that denial of back wages for a period of 14 to 15 years for which the concerned workmen remained out of employment would be sufficient punishment for the misconduct proved against them. .
Judgment Accordingly. the employer's Special Civil Applications were allowed and those filed by the workmen were dismissed .
As per section 10(3) & 10-A an appropriate govt can prohibit a strike or a lockout if there is an dispute and the dispute has already been referred for adjudication. In contravention of Section 23 of this Act.Illegal Strikes & Lockout A strike or lock-out shall be illegal if In contravention of Section 22 of this Act.Section 24. under Section 10(3) or of Section 10-A of the Act. In contravention of order made by Appropriate govt. .
Section 24(2) Where a strike or lock-out in pursuance of and has already commenced and is in existence at the time of reference of the dispute to a Board. a Labour court. Tribunal or National Tribunal. an Arbitrator. . the continuance of such strike shall not be deemed to be illegal provided that such strike or lock-out was not in contravention of the provisions of this act.
A strike declared in consequence of an illegal lock-out.Section 24(3) Following is not deemed to be illegal A lock-out declared in consequence of an illegal strike. .
Illegal but justified strike 2.Punishment for Illegal strikes Illegal strikes are of two types 1. Behavior of workmen is violent. Illegal and unjustified strike Reasons for unjustified strikes Demands may be unreasonably high. Demands may be made with extraneous motives. . Steps taken by employer to redress the alleged grievances through negotiation or conciliation.
discharge or termination could be imposed. . No workmen can be dismissed or terminated for taking part in illegal but justified strike. For deciding punishment a clear distinction has to be made between Violent strike : in defiance of law and order Peaceful strike : silent participators For first case punishment of dismissal.
Strike by Government Servants. Right of employer to compensation for loss caused by illegal strike. . Right of striking workmen to reinstatement after termination of strike.
Prohibition of financial aid to illegal strikes and lockouts No person shall knowingly spend or apply any money in direct furtherance or support of an illegal strike or lock-out.Section 25. Illegal strike or lock-out. Direct furtherance or support. Spending or applying money. Knowledge on the part of the person .
Penalty for illegal strikes and lock-out Section 26(1).Section 26.Illegal lockout Imprisonment extending to one month or Maximum fine of Rs 1000 or Both .Illegal strike Imprisonment extending to one month or Maximum fine of Rs 50 or Both Section 26(2).
.Penalty for instigation Following acts are punishable Instigation to others to take part in an illegal strike/lockout.Section 27. 6 month imprisonment or fine extending to Rs 1000 or both. Section 28. Incitement to others to take part in illegal strike or lockout. Acting in furtherance of illegal strike or lockout. • 6 month imprisonment or fine extending to Rs 1000 or both.Penalty for giving financial aid to illegal strike and lockouts.
demonstration. .Background of the Case Industrial peace till 1997. cars. scooter. Stone pelting. machinery on 28th Oct 1997. Union resorted Strike from 23rd April 1997 to 22nd August 1997. Since 1997 union/misguided employees have been holding gheraos. tool-down strike. braking of glass of factory. assault. Tool-down strike without notice from 21st to 31st Jul 1998.
During all this Company wrote more than 10 letters to Labour Commissioner informing them about all the problems it was facing. Union went on strike from 13th Dec 1999 & it involved assault of officers & gherao. . Again a tool-down strike on 8th Nov 1998 without any notice. Union observed Janamashtami as holiday on 14th Aug 1998.
Labour passed order under Section 10(3) prohibiting the continuance of the lockout on 10th Feb 2000.CASE OUTLINE • Company declared Lockout from 13th Jan 2000. • Company received show-cause notice on 17th Jan 2000. • Allegations were of violation of Section 24. • Petitioner moved to Delhi High court against this order. • Company responded the reason to be immense danger to life and property. • Informed Labour Commissioner about the lockout. • Secretary. . and no improvement in situation. • Conciliation proceedings for the dispute were pending.
• Order of single learned judge was set aside. • The court observed that Section 10(3) was not attracted at all. . gherao etc. abusing. • Also it was alleged that petitioner did no participated in conciliation proceedings. • Rather it was in connection with indiscipline.• It was alleged that petitioner was trying to retrench 156 workmen. • Reference to Express Newspaper v. • Reference to Workmen of Edward Keventers v Delhi Administration 1969. • The lockout was not in connection with the dispute. Their Workers.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.