Central University of South Bihar

Project work of Labour Law

Topic:
Meaning and justifiability of Strikes and
Lockout

submitted by: soni kumari

Enroll. Id: CUSB1613125047
Programme: BA.LLB (Hons.)
Semester: 7th semester
Paper: Labour Law
Course Instructor: Dr. Ram Chandra Oraon

1|Page
 Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………2
Strike………………………………………………………………………………2-6
Causes of strike……………………………………………………………………..7
Kinds of strike…………………………………………………………………….8-9
Lockout…………………………………………………………………………...9-10
Justification of strike and lockout……………………………………………..10-14
Difference between strike and lockout……………………………………………14
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….15

2|Page
Introduction:

In any industrial endeavour co-operation of labour and capital is quite essential for its success,
although they have interests contrary to each other. They have different strategies and weapons
to ventilate their grievances and safeguard their interests. These democratic weapons often used
by them are strikes and lockouts.
Strike and lock-out are two powerful weapons in the hands of the workers and the employers.
Strike signifies the suspension or stoppage of work by the worker while in case of lock-out the
employer compels persons employed by him to accept his terms or conditions by shutting down
or closing the place of business. Strike is recognized as an ordinary right of social importance
to the working class to ventilate their grievances and thereby resolve industrial conflict. Skillful
use of these weapons, whether threatened or actual, may help one party to force the other to
accept its demand or atleast to concede something to them. But reckless use of them results in
the risk of unnecessary stoppage of work hurting both parties badly creating worse tensions,
frictions and violations of law and order. From the point of view of the public, they retard the
nation’s economic development. India cannot tolerate frequent stoppage of work for frivolous
reasons that often accompany it. For these reasons, the Industrial Disputes Act seeks to regulate
and restrict strikes and lock-outs so that neither the workmen nor employers may hold the
nation to ransom.

3|Page
 STRIKE

Historical Background:
Strikes came into existence in the wake of the Industrial Revolution. With the invention of
machinery to supplant human labour, unemployment, lowering of wages in a competitive
market, supply of labour in excess of demand - became the order of the day. The first known
strike was in the 12th century B.C., in Egypt. Workers under Pharaoh Ramses III stopped
working on the Necropolis until they were treated better 1. The use of the English word ‘strike’
first appeared in 1768 when sailors in support of demonstrations in London, “struck or removed
the topgallant sails of merchant ships at port thus, thus crippling the ships2. As the 19th century
progressed, strikes became a fixture of industrial relations across the industrialized world, as
workers organized themselves to bargaining for better wages and standards with their
employees. The 1974 railway strike in India was the strike by workers of Indian Railways in
1974. The 20 days strike by 17 lakh workers is the largest known strike in India. The strike was
held to demand a raise in pay scale, which had remained stagnant over many years, in spite of
the fact that pay scales of other government owned entities had risen over the years 3. Strikes
became common during the Industrial Revolution, when mass labor became important in
factories and mines. In most countries, strike actions were quickly made illegal, as factory
owners had far more political power than workers. However, most western countries partially
legalized striking in the late 19th or early 20th centuries.

MEANING
The term strike owes its origin to old English word ‘strican to go’, which means ‘hit’, impress,
occur to, to quit work on a trade dispute. According to G.M. KOTHARI it means, stoppage of
work or putting of work by employees in their economic struggle with capital. In the simple
words, strike is an act, by which workmen put an end to the work until and unless their just
economic demands are satisfied. In other words, strike means the stoppage of work by a body
of workmen acting in concert with a view to bring pressure upon the employer to concede to
their demands during an industrial dispute. The workmen must be employed in any industry.
The strike is the weapon in the armoury of the working class to fight collectively and to pressure
on the employer. It is a weapon which is made use of by the labour class to safeguard their
interests both economic and cultural.

1 Simple.wikipedia.org,last visited on 17/11/2018

2 En.wikipedia.org,last, visited on17/11/2018
3 En.wikipedia.org ,last visited on17/11/2018

4|Page
DEFENITION
The term ‘strike’ has been defined in a wide variety of branches of human knowledge, like
etymology, sociology, political economy, law and political science.
Anderson’s law dictionary defines strike to be a combination among labourers or those
employed by others, to compel an increase of wages, a change in hours of labour, a change in
the manner of conducting the business of principal or to enforce some particular policy in the
character or number of the men employed or the like. Webster’s dictionary defines the term
strike as “the act of quitting work done by mutual understanding by a body of workmen as a
means of enforcing compliance with demands made on their employer; a stopping of work by
workmen in order to obtain or resist a change in conditions of employment.”
It shows that strike is adopted as the means to compel the employer to enforce compliance of
demands made on their employer. In such an action the work is stopped by the workmen under
common understanding. The purpose of strike is always to ameliorate the working conditions
or for some gainful objective.

DEFINITION UNDER INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT, 1947

Strike defined in clause (q) of Section 2 of the Act means:
1. Cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination; or
2. A concerted refusal of any number of persons who are or have been employed in any
industry to continue to work or to accept employment; or
3. A refusal under a common understanding of any number of persons who are or have been
employed in any industry to continue to work or to accept employment.
Essentials of strike: According to the definition stated above, to constitute strike, following
essentials are to be satisfied:
(a) Cessation of work;
(b) Cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry;
(c) Acting in combination
(d) The industry must be an ‘industry’ within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act;
(e) Concerted refusal;
(f) The refusal must be under the common understanding to continue to work or to accept
aemployment;
(g) Strike must relate to employment, non-employment,or terms of employment or with the
conditions of labour of the workmen.

5|Page
 In state of Bihar v. Deudas Jha, in this case it was held that the length of time of strike has
nothing to do with the meaning of “strike” as given in the Act. Stoppage and refusal to
work even for a few hours would amount to strike when there was concert and combination
of the workers in stopping and refusing to resume work.
Kameswar Prasad v. State of Bihar; in this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to
strike is not the fundamental right. It is only an ordinary right of the social importance to
working class to ventilate their grievances and thereby resolve industrial conflicts.
Some important cases

Indian Iron & Steel ltd. v/s Its Workmen4

Held Mere cessation of work does not come within the preview of strike unless it can be shown
that such cessation of work was a concerted action for the enforcement of an industrial demand.
Cessation of work or refusal to work is an essential element of strike. This is the most
significant characteristic of the concept of strike. There can be no strike if there is no cessation
of work. The cessation of work may take any form. It must however be temporary and not
forever and it mustbe voluntary. No duration can be fixed for this in fact duration for cessation
of work is immaterial. Cessation of work even for half an hour amounts to strike. Buckingham
& Carnatak Co. Ltd. v/s Workers of Buckingham& Carnatak Co. Ltd5.
On the 1st November, 1948 night shift operators of carding ad spinning department of the
Carnatak Mill stopped work some at 4 p.m. some at 4:30 p.m. and some at 5 p.m. The stoppage
ended at 8 p.m. in both the departments. By 10 p.m. the strike ended completely. The cause for
the strike was that the management of the Mills had expressed inability to comply with the
request of the workers to declare 1st November, 1948 as a holiday for solar eclipse. Supreme
Court held it strike.

Concerted action is another important ingredient of strike. The workers must act under a
common understanding. The cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry
in combination is a strike. Stoppage of work by workers individually does not amount to strike.

Ram Sarup & Another v/s Rex6

The Court held that mere absence from work is not enough but there must be concerted refusal
to work, to constitute a strike. The object of an industrial strike is achievement of economic
objectives or defence of mutual interests. The objects of strikes must be connected with the
employment, nonemployment, terms of employment or terms and conditions of labour because
they are prominent issues on which the workers may go on strikes for pressing their demands

4 (1967)I LLJ 381 (Pat).

5 AIR 1953 SC 47 6 AIR 1949 All 218
6 AIR 1949 All 218

6|Page
and such objects include the demands for codification of proper labour laws in order to abolish
unfair labour practices prevalent in a particular area of industrial activity. The strike may also
be used as a weapon for betterment of working conditions, for achievement of safeguards,
benefits and other protection for themselves, their dependents and for their little ones.

In B. R. Singh v/s Union of India7, it was held that the strike is a form of demonstration.
Though the right to strike or right to demonstrate is not a fundamental right, it is recognized as
a mode of redress for resolving the grievances of the workers. Though this right has been
recognized by almost all democratic countries but it is not an absolute right.

In T.K. Rangarajan v/s Tamil Nadu8, the Tamil Nadu government terminated the
services of all employees who resorted to strike. The Apex Court held that Government staffs
have no statutory, moral or fundamental right to strike.

In Dharma Singh Rajput v/s Bank of India, it was held that right to strike as a mode of
redress of the legitimate grievance of the workers is recognized by the Industrial Disputes Act.
However, this right is to be exercised after complying with the conditions mentioned in the Act
and also after exhausting the intermediate and salutary remedy for conciliation.
In 2005, the Supreme Court reiterated that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call
for boycott and not even a token strike to espouse their causes.

Causes of Strikes:-
In the early history of labor troubles the causes of strikes were few. They arose chiefly from
differences as to rates of wages, which are still the most fruitful sources of strikes, and from
quarrels growing out of the dominant and servient relations of employers and employees. While
labor remained in a state of actual or virtual servitude, there was no place for strikes. With its
growing freedom "conspiracies of workmen" were formed, and strikes followed. The scarcity
of labor in the fourteenth century, and the subsequent attempts to force men to work at wages
and under conditions fixed by statute, were sources of constant difficulties, while the efforts to
continue the old relation of master and servant with its assumed rights and duties, a relation
law recognizes to this day, were, and still are, the causes of some of the most bitter strikes that
have ever occurred.

Strikes are caused by differences as to 9:

7 (1989) II Lab LJ 591 (SC)

8

9 Industrialrelations.naukrihub.com/strikes.html

7|Page
1. Rates of wages and demands for advances or reductions i.e. Bonus, profit sharing, provident
fund and gratuity.
2. Payment of wages, changes in the method, time or frequency of payment;
3. Hours of labor and rest intervals;
4. Administration and methods of work, for or against changes in the methods of work or rules
and methods of administration, including the difficulties regarding labor-saving machinery,
piece-work, apprentices and discharged employees;
5. Trade unionism.
6. Retrenchment of workmen and closure of establishment.
7. Wrongful discharge or dismissal of workmen.

Kinds of Strike:

There are mainly three kinds of strike, namely--

• general strike,
• stay-in-strike, and
• go slow.

General Strike: -
In General Strike, the workmen join together for common cause and stay away from work,
depriving the employer of their labour needed to run his factory. Token Strike is also a kind of
General Strike. Token Strike is for a day or a few hours or for a short duration because its main
object is to draw the attention of the employer by demonstrating the solidarity and co-operation
of the workers. General Strike is for a longer period. It is generally resorted to when employees
fail to achieve their object by other means including a token strike which generally proceeds a
General Strike. The common forms of such strikes are organized by central trade unions in
railways, post and telegraph, etc. Hartals and Bundhs also fall in this category.

Stay-in-Strike:
It is also known as ‘tools-down-strike’ or ‘pens-down-strike. It is the form of strike where the
workmen report to their duties, occupy the premises but do not work. The employer is thus
prevented from employing other labour to carry on his business.

8|Page
Mysore Machinery Manufacturers v/s State10 Held: Where dismissed workmen were staying
on premises and refused to leave them, did not amount to strike but an offence of criminal
trespass.

Punjab National Bank Ltd. v/s Their workmen11

The court held that refusal under common understanding to continue to work is a strike and if
in pursuance of such common understanding the employees entered the premises of the bank
and refused to take their pens in their hands would no doubt be a strike under section 2(q).

Go-Slow: -
In a ‘Go-Slow’ strike, the workmen do not stay away from work. They do come to their work
and work also, but with a slow speed in order to lower down the production and thereby cause
loss to the employer.
Sasa Musa Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd. v/s Shobrati Khan & Ors12
Held: Go-Slow strike is not a “strike” within the meaning of the term in the Act, but is serious
misconduct which is insidious in its nature and cannot be countenanced.
In addition to these three forms of strike which are frequently resorted to by the industrial
workers, a few more may be cited although some of them are not strike within the meaning of
section 2(q).
Hunger Strike: In Hunger Strike a group of workmen resort to fasting on or near the place
of work or the residence of the employer with a view to coerce the employer to accept their
demands. Piparaich Sugar Mills Ltd. v/s Their Workmen 13 Certain employees who held key
positions in the mill resorted to hunger strike at the residence of the managing Director, with
the result that even those workmen who reported to their duties could not be given work. Held:
That concerted action of the workmen who went on Hunger Strike amounted to “strike” within
the meaning of this sub-section.
Sympathetic Strike: A Sympathetic Strike is resorted to in sympathy of other striking
workmen. It is one which is called for the purpose of indirectly aiding others. Its aim is to
encourage or to extend moral support to or indirectly to aid the striking workmen. The
sympathizers resorting to such strike have no demand or grievance of their own.
Work to rule: Here the employees strictly adhere to the rules while performing their duties
which ordinarily they do not observe. Thus strict observance of rules results in slowing down
the tempo of work causes inconvenience to the public and embarrassment to the employer. It
is no strike because there is no stoppage of work at all.

10 AIR 1966 Mys 51 11 AIR 1960 SC 160

11 AIR 1960 SC 160

12 AIR 1959 SC 923
13 AIR 1960 SC 1258

9|Page
 LOCK-OUT
Definition:
“Lock-Out” has been defined in section 2 (1) to mean the 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.
Background:
India witnessed lock-out twenty-five years after the "lock-out" was known and used in the
arena of labour management relations in industrially advanced countries. The first known lock-
out was declared in 1895 in Budge Budge Jute Mills 14

Meaning:
Strike is a weapon in the hands of the labour to force the management to accept their demands.
Similarly, Lock-Out is a weapon in the hands of the management to coerce the labour to come
down in their demands relating to the conditions of employment. Lock-Out is the keeping of
labour away from works by an employer with a view to resist their claim.
There are four ingredients of Lock-Out:-
1. (i) temporary closing of a place of employment by the employer, or
(ii) suspension of work by the employer, or
(iii) refusal by an employer to continue to employ any number of persons employed by
him;
2. The above mentioned acts of the employer should be motivated by coercion.
3. An industry as defined in the Act; and
4. A dispute in such industry.

Lock-Out has been described by the Supreme Court as the antithesis of strike. Shri.
Ramchandra Spinning Mills v/s State of Madras 15 Held: If the employer shuts down his place
of business as a means of reprisasl or as an instrument of coercion or as a mode of exerting
pressure on the employees or generally speaking when his act is what may be called an act of
belligerency there would be a lock-out.
In case of Lock-Out the workmen are asked by the employer to keep away from work, and,
therefore they are not under any obligation to present themselves for work. So also Lock-Out
is due to and during an industrial dispute.

14 http://www.legalserviceindia.com
15 AIR 1956 SC Mad 241
10 | P a g e
 Causes: A lockout is generally used to enforce terms of employment upon a group of
employees during a dispute. A lockout can act to force unionized workers to accept changed
conditions such as lower wages. If the union is asking for higher wages, or better benefits, an
employer may use the threat of a lockout or an actual lockout to convince the union to back
down16. Lock-Outs may be caused by internal disturbances, when the factory management goes
in to financial crisis or got succumbed into financial debts, disputes between workers and
workers, disputes between workers and management or may be caused by illtreatment of
workers by the management. Sometimes lockouts may be caused by external influences, such
as unnecessary political parties involvement in management of workers, union may be
provoked for unjustified demands that may be unaffordable by the management, which may
ultimately lead to lockout of the factory.17

Some of the major cause of the Lock-Out

1. Disputes or clashes between workers and the management.
2. Unrest, disputes or clashes in between workers and workers.
3. Illegal strikes, regular strikes or continuous strikes by workers.
4. Continuous or accumulated financial losses of factory or industry.
5. If any company involves in any fraudulent or illegal activities.
6. Failure in maintaining proper industrial relations, industrial peace and harmony.

JUSTIFIABILITY OF STRIKE and lockout

Justification of strike is the question of the fact and has to determmiuned by the each case The
bigger question has always been that, what justifes 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 strike 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 than anticipated. In case
if it gets violent, should be violence be then weighed ion while deciding the justification of
strike? Sec33 and 33A of id Act to make the labour- industry relations more formal and
long lasting.

16 En.wikipedia.org visited on 19/11/2018

17 whatishumanresource.com visited on 19/11/2018
11 | P a g e
In the decided case 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 unsustainable reasons for the strike on the part of
workmen
(b) The nature of strike whether the peaceful of violent and
(c) Whether the strike was resorted to after exhausting all the means of redress.
Although strike is a legitimate and sometimes unavoidable weapon in the hands of workers and
may be resorted for securing their demands to improve their conditions, yet the justifiability of
a strike has to be viewed from the standpoint of fairness and reasonableness of the demands
made by workmen and not merely from the standpoint of their exhausting all other legitimate
means open to them for getting the demands fulfilled. However, down or the arbitration has
been turned down or the arbitration has failed should pass the below mentioned
test:
1. The cause of the strike must be just;
2. There should be practical unanimity among strikers;
3. No violence should be used against non-strikers;
4. Strikers should be able to maintain themselves during the strike period without falling back
upon union funds and should therefore occupy themselves in some useful and productive
temporary occupation.18
In Chandramalai Estate, Ernakulum v. its workmen 19K.C. Gupta J. stated that while on the
one hand it has to be remembered that strikes is a legitimate and sometimes unavoidable
weapon in the hands of labour, it is equally important to remember that indiscriminate and
hasty use of this weapon should not be encouraged. It will not be right for labour to think that
for any kind of demands a strike can be commenced with impunity without exhausting
reasonable avenues for peaceful achievement of their objects. There may be cases where the
demand is of such an urgent and serious nature that it would not be reasonable to expect labour
to wait till after asking the Government to make a reference. In such cases, strike even before
such a request had been made, may well be justified. Collective bargaining for securing
improvement on matters like basic pay, dearness allowance provident fund, bonus and gratuity,
leave and holidays is the primary object of a trade union and when demands like these ate put
forward and thereafter, a strike is resorted in an attempt to induce the employer to agree to the
demands or at least to open negotiations, the strike must prime facie be considered to be
justified unless it can be shown that the demands were put up frivolously or for any ulterior
purpose20. Even where the strike was not directly connected with the demand for bonus and
uncontroverted evidence established that the strike was a protest against the unreasonable
attitude of the management, in boycotting the conference held by the Labour Minister, the
strike was held to be not unjustified 21. In the case of workmen of Bihar Fire-works & Potteries

18 Majumdar P. An anatomy to Peaceful Industrial Relation at p.54

19 1960(II) LLJ 243 at p.246
20 Swadeshi Industries Ltd. v. Its Workmen,(1960)(II) LLJ 78
21 Churakulum Tea Estate (p) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1969)(II) LLJ 407
12 | P a g e
Union v. Bihiar fire works & potteries Ltd22. What happened was that the workmen resorted
to one hour token strike by way of protest against the dismissal of six workmen. A new days
later, the management issued a notice intimating that appropriate deductions would be made
from the wages of those who had taken part in the one hour's token strike on 22nd January,
1951. The management issued another notice intimating that further appropriate deductions
would be made from the salaries of those who went on token strike for the second time on 1st
February, 1951, and thereafter the management did make the deductions. The tribunal to which
the matter was referred held both the token strikes as 'frivolous and unjustified' and the striking
workmen, therefore, were not entitled to wages for the period of the token strikes. The
Appellate Tribunal, not illegal as they did not contravene the provisions of Section 22 and 23
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But the point to be considered was whether the strikes
were justified or not. It was held by the Appellate Tribunal that the strike cannot be said to be
unjustified unless the reasons for it are absolutely perverse and unsustainable. The awards of
the tribunal was set aside and it was directed that deductions made from the workmen's wages
should be paid back to them. If an employer behaves in an unreasonable manner, if he curtly
turns down all worker's demands and refuses to consider them on their merits, if he resorts to
unfair labour practices and if he rejects conciliation and arbitration, workers will be regarded
as justified in taking recourse to a strike weapon. When a strike, legal or otherwise, is found
to be justified in the sense in which this term is used by Industrial Tribunals, what is normally
meant by that finding is not that there is complete justification for the strike, or that the authority
in judging the nature of the strike, approbates the action of the workers in going on strike under
the circumstances, and where the strike being illegal and against the express prohibition
imposed by the law a finding of complete justification of the strike or approbation of the
conduct of the workers participating therein is impossible for any Tribunal. Apart from any
drastic step that the employer might be entitled to take in consequence of the strike, not only
does the law positively disapprove and prohibit such action, but it imposes penalties for the
same and also from time to time serious disabilities, in many respects, have been provided by
legislature for workers any. which can be looked for in such cases can only be a relative
justification, such as can be found when the workers have reason to entertain a bonafide
unredressed grievance, which render the circumstances in which they happen to be placed., is
found to be such as to make them feel that the only course left to redress the grievance
effectively and without under delay is some stoppage of work23. In this country, the question
of payment of wages during periods of strike is not covered by legislation nor is there an
accepted code of jurisprudence in this regard. The points generally considered by adjudicator
in awarding a strike pay is whether the strike was legal or whether the strike was in consequence
to an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer. Sections 22 to 24 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 describe the circumstances under which a strike or lock-out is illegal and
fifth schedule section 2 of the act givers a list of unfair labour practices on the part of the
employer as well as the employees. With regard to the issue of payment of wages during a
strike period there has been a body of decisions by adjudicators. In the recent years arguments
are put forth for and against the award of strike pay in context of the circumstances leading to
each dispute. There had been no uniform trend but there is a gradual emergence of a body of
principles that has guided the adjudicators, Industrial Tribunals in deciding the issue of strike
pay. From trend of general arguments advanced by adjudicators it would appear that only in

22 1953 ILL.J.
23 smanshahi Mills Ltd. v. Its workmen, (1959)(I) LL.J.187
13 | P a g e
exceptional cases, should the workers be awarded wages during the periods of strike. The board
determining principle is no work - no wage. When a strike has been occasioned by the
employment of an unfair labour practice by the management or where the employees had been
always willing to submit to arbitration which the management has not agreed to, it would be
open to an Industrial court to award strike pay if the strike had been legal and had been
conducted peacefully. The first and foremost important consideration taken into account by the
Adjudicators, Industrial Tribunals in deciding the issue of payment of wages during a period
of strike. The legality concept has to be determined taking into view the relevant provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. If the strike is found to be illegal, the strikers would have no
claim for pay during the period of strike. The next consideration is was the strike Justified.
There will be circumstances in which a strike may be justified and a concerned action alone
might bring about the redress of a genuine grievance and in such cases the strikers are entitled,
to wages during the strike period. The another consideration taken by the adjudicators while
adjudicating the strike pay is was the strike occasioned by an unfair labour practice by the
employer. If the employer commits an unfair labour practice, the workers are entitled to strike
pay. Technical reasons also come into play in rejecting the workers claim for pay during the
periods of strike. There had also been instances where the question of strike pay was amicably
settled by agreement between the employers and workers. In determining the amount of pay to
be awarded during a period of strike the Adjudicators, Industrial Tribunals have often followed
the method of apportioning blame and awarding strike pay in accordance with the extent of
blame attached to the parties. The strike pay cannot be claimed as a legal right since there exists
no statutory provision relating to this aspect. However the relief of wages for the strike period
is granted not as a normal legal relief but based on compassionate and equitable grounds on
account of economic disparity between the employer and the worker. It is found to be
otherwise unjustified. It is not only the end but the means too that must be reasonable and
just. The judiciary has taken up the issue of strike pay and it had putforth the arguments for and
against it taking into view the facts of the case and the circumstances leading to the dispute.
The following case law helps us to know as to when a strike pay is awarded and under what
circumstances a striker is entitled for strike pay. .In P.C. Roy & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Raycom
Forests Labour Union24, the employer failed to pay work men wages on the due dates,
although he did pay the same after some time. The workmen went on strike, and continued
even after the wages have been paid. The Calcutta High Court held that the strike was
unjustified only up to the date of payment and accordingly allowed worker claim for wages for
the period of strike only up to such date. Where during the strike period and even prior to that,
several of the workmen resorted to violence and other acts of indecency and the workmen
continued the strike even after the notification issued prohibiting the strike and requiring the
workers to report for duty and the circumstances clearly showed that the demand of the union
regarding ex-gratia bonus could not be considered to be of an urgent and serious nature, the
launching of the strike was held to be unjustified. Hence, the workmen were held to be not
entitled to any wages for the period of strike25.
Some other conditions under which a strike and lockout are justified are;

24 AIR (1964) Calcutta 221

25 Management of the Fertilizer Corporation of India v. Their Workmen, AIR (1970) SC. 867

14 | P a g e
. 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, bonous, provident fund, gratuity, leave and holidays etc. which are the primary
objects of a trade union.
. The economic demands should be raised frivolously or on ulterior reasons.
. If some demand are not referred to adjudication or arbitration by the employers.

Differences between strike and lockout

(a) Section 2 (q) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines strike while ASec.2(l) of the
Industrial Dispute Act defines Lock-out.
(b) It is the weapon resorted to by workmen to their demands while lockout is a weapon
resorted to by an employer to suppress the workmen.
(c) Strike is the temporary closure of place of employement while lockout is the cessation
of work by body of persons employed in an industry

COncLUSION

Though under the Constitution of India, the right to strike is not a fundamental right as such, it
is open to a citizen to go on strike or withhold his labour. It is a legitimate weapon in the matter
of industrial relations. In both lock-out and strike, a labour controversy exists which is deemed
intolerable by one of the parties, but lock-out indicates that the employers rather than the
employees have brought the matter in issue.
Strike may be justified or unjustified, legal or illegal. It depends on the circumstances of each
case. It is usually associated with collective bargaining by workers and is permissible under
Industrial dispute Act, 1947. Lock-out is a weapon of coercion in the hands of the employer
with a motive to coerce the workmen which is due to an industrial dispute and continues during
the period of dispute. However strikes and lock-outs are prohibited during the pendency of
conciliation adjudication and arbitration proceedings.
Strikes are said to be revolutionary as it seeks to obtain better living conditions for the workers
who form the majority in the industrial community. Better wages, better homes and healthy
living condition better education—these are the healthy objectives for the attainment of which
labour resorts to strikes. Hence, strikes may justly be described as contributing towards a
revolutionary process in man's progress towards social order.
'Lock-outs', on the contrary, are reactionary by any measures; because their object is to frustrate
this progressive tend in human affairs. To hold down wages to a minimum, workers denied of
equal opportunities for the education of their children, and no savings to fall back upon in evil
times, is surely unjustifiable, and may be rightly called reactionary.

15 | P a g e
A strike signals the transfer of power from the employer to the union. While the employer has
a right to employ and retrench workers, in the case of a strike, the right to not come to the place
of work is with the union. This transfer of right also means higher bargaining power for the
union. A strike is also used by the union to unite its members and send a strong signal to the
management. In this case, strike also becomes an effective tool for the union to regain any lost
support among the workers.
A lockout declared because of the poor financial condition of the company has an obvious
advantage for the employer because it lets him cut his financial losses. During this period, an
employer does not have to pay the labour costs and other variable costs.
However A lockout is the last step an employer would take. This is because a lockout means
loss of production, which in turn means financial losses for the company. So except it is a case
of financial distress, the employer would like to continue working. A lockout also means
deterioration in the relationship between the employer and the union/workmen. If the workmen
decide to contest the reasons on which the employer has declared a lockout, there are chances
that the employer might have to end up paying wages for the period of lockout along with
others benefits which will have huge implication on the financial status of the company.

16 | P a g e