In this blogpost, Sonal Srivastava, Student, Amity Law School, Lucknow, writes about what are strikes and lockouts and the provisions relating to them in India.
Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 deals with the provisions related to strikes and lockouts in industries, factories, companies, etc. it specifically deals with the provisions related to prohibition of strikes and lockouts, illegal strikes and lockouts and prohibition of financial aid to illegal strikes and lockouts. Chapter VI of the Act deals with the penalties for carrying out illegal strikes and lockouts.
In general, the meaning of lockout is the temporary stoppage of the work by the employer of the company as an outcome of industrial or labour dispute whereas strike means refusal to work by the employees.
Thus, the present article shall deal with various provisions on the same.
Table of Contents
Prohibition of strikes and lockouts
According to section 22(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, any person employed in a public utility service shall not go on a strike, in breach of contract unless he has given a notice of strike to the employer six weeks before the strike, within fourteen days of giving such notice, before the expiry of the date mentioned in the notice and during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings.
According to section 22(2) of the Act, no employer of any public utility service shall lock out any of his workmen unless he has given them six weeks prior notice before the lockout, within fourteen days of giving such notice, before the expiry of the date of lockout specified in any such notice or during the conciliation proceedings before any conciliation officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings.
However there shall be no requirement of serving of notice when there is already a strike or lockout being carried out and notice shall be given in the manner prescribed in the act.
In the case of Indian General Navigation and Railway Co. Ltd v. Their Workmen[1], it was observed that when the blame attaches to both the parties’ i.e the employer and the workmen, then the burden of back wags that have elapsed shall be borne half and half by the parties.
Section 23 of the Act relates to the specific provisions of section 22 of the Act.
Illegal Strikes and Lockouts
According to section 24 of the Act, a strike or lockout shall be considered to be illegal if it is commenced in contravention to the provisions of section 22 and 23 of the Act; if it is continued in contravention of an order which is made under section 10(3) or (4 A) of section 10 A.
However where a strike or lockout is in existence when the matter is being referred to an arbitrator, then the continuation of such strike and lockout shall not be considered to be illegal.
Similarly, a lockout declared in consequence of an illegal strike or a strike declared in consequence of an illegal lockout shall not be considered as illegal.
Prohibition of financial aid to illegal strikes and lockouts
According to section 26 of the Act, no financial aid either directly or indirectly shall be provided for the furtherance of any illegal strike or lockout.
Penalties for illegal strike and lockouts
According to section 26 any workman who commences or continues an illegal strike shall be punished with an imprisonment of one month or a fine of 1000 rupees or with both.
Similarly, any employer who acts in contravention to section 24 shall be liable to same punishment.
According to section 28 of the Act, any person who acts in contravention to section 26 of the Act shall be liable to be punished with an imprisonment of six months or fine of 1000 rupees or with both.
Conclusion
The provisions for strikes and lockouts have been specifically laid down so that there is no monopoly at workplace and neither of the parties is met to injustice. It is upon both the parties to understand the mutual relations and both the parties should work in accordance with law and strikes and lockouts should be the remedy of last resort instead of being the first. Priority should be given to resolve the dispute without taking recourse to such actions.
[1] (1960) 1 TLLJ 13.
