Page 187 - DMGT306_MERCANTILE_LAWS_II

Mercantile Laws – II

Notes there is a concert of combination of workers stopping or refusing to resume work. Going on
mass casual leave under a common understanding amounts to a strike. However, the refusal by
workmen should be in respect of normal lawful work which the workmen are under an obligation
to do. But refusal to do work which the employer has no right to ask for performance, such a
refusal does not constitute a strike (Northbrooke Jute Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1960 SC 879).
If on the sudden death of a fellow-worker, the workmen acting in concert refuse to resume work,
it amounts to a strike (National Textile Workers Union v. Shree Meenakshi Mills, (1951) II L.L.J. 516).
(iii) The striking workman must be employed in an “industry” which has not been closed down.
(iv) Even when workmen cease to work, the relationship of employer and employee is deemed
to continue albeit in a state of belligerent suspension. In Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Michael
Mark, 1962-II, L.L.J. 220 S.C., the Supreme Court observed that if there is a strike by workmen, it
does not indicate, even when strike is illegal, that they have abandoned their employment.
However, for illegal strike, the employer can take disciplinary action and dismiss the striking
workmen.

Types of Strike and their Legality

(i) Stay-in, sit-down, pen-down or tool-down strike: In all such cases, the workmen after
taking their seats, refuse to do work. Even when asked to leave the premises, they refuse
to do so. All such acts on the part of the workmen acting in combination, amount to a
strike. Since such strikes are directed against the employer, they are also called primary
strikes. In the case of Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. All India Punjab National Bank Employees
Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160, the Supreme Court observed that on a plain and grammatical
construction of this definition it would be difficult to exclude a strike where workmen
enter the premises of their employment and refuse to take their tools in hand and start
their usual work. Refusal under common understanding not to work is a strike. If in
pursuance of such common understanding the employees enter the premises of the Bank
and refuse to take their pens in their hands that would no doubt be a strike under Section
2(q).
(ii) Go-slow: Go-slow does not amount to strike, but it is a serious case of misconduct

In another case, it was observed that slow-down is an insidious method of undermining
the stability of a concern and Tribunals certainly will not countenance it. It was held that
go slow is a serious misconduct being a covert and a more damaging breach of the contract
of employment (SU Motors v. Workman, 1990-II LLJ 39). It is not a legitimate weapon in the
armoury of labour. It has been regarded as a misconduct.
(iii) Sympathetic strike: Cessation of work in the support of the demands of workmen belonging
to other employer is called a sympathetic strike. This is an unjustifiable invasion of the
right of employer who is not at all involved in the dispute. The management can take
disciplinary action for the absence of workmen. However, in Ramalingam v. Indian
Metallurgical Corporation, Madras, 1964-I L.L.J. 81, it was held that such cessation of work
will not amount to a strike since there is no intention to use the strike against the
management.
(iv) Hunger strike: Some workers may resort to fast on or near the place of work or residence
of the employer. If it is peaceful and does not result in cessation of work, it will not
constitute a strike. But if due to such an act, even those present for work, could not be given
work, it will amount to strike (Pepariach Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Their Workmen).
(v) Work-to-rule: Since there is no cessation of work, it does not constitute a strike.

182 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY