Page 188 - DMGT306_MERCANTILE_LAWS_II

Unit 10: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Legality of Strike Notes

The legality of strike is determined with reference to the legal provisions enumerated in the Act
and the purpose for which the strike was declared is not relevant in directing the legality.
Section 10(3), 10A(4A), 22 and 23 of the Act deals with strike. Sections 22 and 23 impose restrictions
on the commencement of strike while Sections 10(3) and 10A(4A) prohibit its continuance.
The justifiability of strike has no direct relation to the question of its legality and illegality. The
justification of strike as held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Matchwell
Electricals of India v. Chief Commissioner, (1962) 2 LLJ 289, is entirely unrelated to its legality or
illegality. The justification of strikes has to be viewed from the stand point of fairness and
reasonableness of demands made by workmen and not merely from stand point of their
exhausting all other legitimate means open to them for getting their demands fulfilled.
As regards the wages to the workers strike period are concerned, the Supreme Court in Charakulam
Tea Estate v. Their Workmen, AIR 1969 SC 998 held that in case of strike which is legal and justified,
the workmen will be entitled to full wages for the strike period. Similar view was taken by the
Supreme Court in Crompton Greaves Ltd. case 1978 Lab 1C 1379 (SC).
The Supreme Court in Statesman Ltd. v. Their Workman, AIR 1976 SC 758 held that if the strike is
illegal or unjustified, strikers will not be entitled to the wages for the strike period unless
considerate circumstances constraint a different cause. Similar view was taken by the Supreme
Court in Madura Coats Ltd. v. The Inspector of Factories, Madurai, AIR 1981 SC 340.

The Supreme Court has also considered the situation if the strike is followed by lockout and vice
versa, and both are unjustified, in India Marine Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workman, AIR 1963 SC 528.
In this case, the Court evolved the doctrine of “apportionment of blame” to solve the problem.
According to this doctrine, when the workmen and the management are equally to be blamed,
the Court normally awards half of the wages. This doctrine was followed by the Supreme Court
in several cases. Thus, the examination of the above cases reveal that when the blame for
situation is apportioned roughly half and half between the management and workmen, the
workmen are given half of the wages for the period involved.
A division bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India v. TS Kelawala, (1990) 2 Lab 1C
39 held that the workers are not entitled to wages for the strike period. The Court observed that
“the legality of strike does not always exempt the employees from the deduction of their
salaries for the period of strike”. The Court, further observed, “whether the strike is legal or
illegal, the workers are liable to lose wages does not either make the strike illegal as a weapon
or deprive the workers of it”.

(vi) Lock-out

“Lock-out” means the temporary closing 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.
[Section 2(l)]
In lock out, the employer refuses to continue to employ the workman employed by him even
though there is no intention to close down the unit. The essence of lock out is the refusal of the
employer to continue to employ workman. Even if suspension of work is ordered, it would
constitute lock out. But mere suspension of work, unless it is accompanied by an intention on the
part of employer as a retaliation, will not amount to lock out.
Locking out workmen does not contemplate severance of the relationship of employer and the
workmen. In the case Lord Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1964) II LLJ 76 (All), a closure
of a place of business for a short duration of 30 days in retaliation to certain acts of workmen (i.e.
to teach them a lesson) was held to be a lock out. But closure is not a lock out.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 183