All India Central Government ... vs Union Of India & Ors.

on 4 May, 2009

To make out a case of breach of Section 22 of the Act, two important requirements have
to be set out and proved, namely :-

(i) that the concern in which a strike took place is a „public utility service‟ within the
meaning of Section 2(n) of the Act; and

(ii) that the strike is in „breach of a contract of service‟ of the striking workmen.

Section 22 bans the commencement of strikes and lockouts in a public utility service,
while Section 23 bans strikes and lockouts generally, in industrial establishments, in
circumstances enumerated therein. Though every industrial establishment is not a public
utility service, every public utility service is an industrial establishment.
Therefore, Sections 22 and 23 will cumulatively apply to prohibition of strikes and
lockouts in public utility services.

12. Every strike is not illegal and the workers enjoy the right to resort to strike, whenever
they are so placed, in order to express their grievances or to make certain demands.
Strikes are not banned even in the case of public utility service. They are only subjected
to certain limitations. There is no doubt that the Act recognizes strikes as a legitimate
weapon in the matter of industrial relations.

 Thus, if the condition of giving notice of strike, even in respect of public utility, is
fulfilled as per the requirement of Section 22, such a strike would be illegal. At the same
time, the industrial jurisprudence recognizes that even if strike is „legal‟ because of the
reason that before resorting to strike requirement of Section 22 or Section 23 were
fulfilled, it is not necessary that such a strike would be justified as well. If a strike is
illegal, that is in contravention of Section 22 and/or Section 23, the consequences thereof,
as provided under the Act would follow as it is accepted principle of law that an illegal
strike cannot be justified. However, even when a strike is legal, in the sense that
procedural formalities as provided in the aforesaid provisions are fulfilled, such a strike
can still be an unjustified strike. Whether the strike is justified or not is the question of
fact and depends on the justification of demands as well as compelling circumstances in
which the employees were forced to go on strike. In Chandramalai Estate v. Workmen,
(1960) 3 SCR 451, the Supreme Court made the following pertinent observations in this
behalf :-
"Although the strike is legitimate and sometimes, an 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 without exhausting the avenues for peaceful
achievements of their objects. The strike, except in case of demands of an urgent and
serious nature, in which it would not be reasonable to expect the labour to wait till after
asking the government to make a reference, is not otherwise justified. The industrial
tribunal cannot come to the conclusion that the strike was half justified and half
unjustified. The award of payment of 50 percent of the total emolument for the strike
period is set aside."
14. Some of the examples of unjustified strikes, as emerged from the case law, may now
be noted :-

(a) A lightening strike when the process of moving the government for adjudicating the
dispute had commenced, was unjustified. (See - Sadul Textile Mills Ltd. v. Workmen,
(1958) 2 LLJ 628)

(b) A strike launched in pursuance of a demand, not of an urgent or serious nature, was
unjustified.

(See- Fertilizer Corp. of India Ltd. v. Workmen, (1978) 2 LLJ 80)

(c) The workers went on strike on Sunday and even prevented other workers from doing
the work. When no notice of change was necessary in order to change the weekly-off day,
then the strike was unjustified and the lockout was justified. (See- Workmen v. Sur Iron
& Steel Co. (P) Ltd., (1971) 1 LLJ 570)

(d) The strike was intended to be a public one but the purpose was to circumvent the
settlement in an amicable manner even though the company was ready for such
settlement. The strike was, therefore, unjustified.

23. We have already highlighted various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act relating

to strikes and have also mentioned the distinction between justified/unjustified and
legal/illegal strike. It would be useful at this stage to quote the observations of the
Supreme Court in various cases on right to strike, while dealing with the aforesaid
provisions. In the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor
Sabha, (1980) 1 LLJ 137, while construing the provisions of Sections 23(A), Justice
Krishna Iyer , observed:

" It looks strange that the pendency of a reference on a tiny or obscure industrial dispute
and they often tend too long- should block strikes on totally unconnected yet substantial
and righteous demands. The constitutional implications and practical complications of
such a veto of a valuable right to strike often leads not to industrial peace but to seething
unrest and lawless strikes."

The Supreme Court has thus held that the right to strike is an important weapon in the
armour of workers as a mode of redress.

24. Therefore, in so far as industrial workmen covered by the definition of workmen

under the Industrial Disputes Act are concerned, it cannot be said that there are no
statutory provisions governing strikes. It would be necessary to clarify here that for a
person to be governed by Industrial Disputes Act, he should be a workman within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act and the establishment in which he is working should
be `industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The
position that emerges is that:

(a) A workman covered by the Industrial Disputes Act will have right to strike and there
are statutory provisions regulating such strikes.
(b) Even Government employees or employees of Government undertakings within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, who are workmen, would be governed by the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and may have right to strike.
(c) Non-workmen in private sector may not resort to strike as no labour legislation is
applicable and they are not protected by any law.
(d) The Government employees of such departments which are not `industry', would have
no such legal/statutory right to go on strike.
(e) The employees of those Government establishments and public sector undertakings
who are outside the definition of `workmen ' would be governed by the Conduct Rules
which prohibit resort to strike by such workmen and makes it a misconduct.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. State and

ors. - Court Judgment
There can be no dispute that strike is one of the most effective and recognized
weapons in the hands of the employees/workmen and the writ Court cannot, by
issuing a writ of mandamus prevent or restrict use of the said weapon until and
unless it in established beyond all reasonable doubt that the strike has been called
in clear violation of the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Industrial
Disputes Act. In the present case, the learned Counsel of the respondent Unions
strongly denied that the aforesaid strike had been called by the respondent
Unions in violation of any provision of the Industrial Disputes Act even though
Mr. Mallik, the learned Counsel of the appellants, has contended otherwise. In
any event, it has not yet been established before any appropriate forum that the
proposed strike called by the respondent Union is in violation of the provisions of
Sections 22 and 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Indian Pilots Vs. Air India Ltd.

On the other hand, Mr Bhasin contended that the action of the members of the
appellant was completely illegal and in contravention of Section 22 and 24 of the
ID Act. It was further contended that admittedly no notice, which is a statutory
requirement, under Section 22 of the ID Act was served prior to the appellant
calling for a strike. It was Mr Bhasin's submission that the concerted action of the
members of the respondent of reporting sick for duty was nothing but a strike,
and being without notice, was completely illegal. On the aspect of jurisdiction, it
was Mr Bhasin's contention that, the issue raised in the suit was not a pure
industrial dispute but, had its basis in general and common law, giving it the right
to approach a civil court against continued illegal actions which, affected the
passengers and the interest of the respondent. It was Mr Bhasin's contention that
the labour court had no powers to issue final and interim orders of the nature
sought for by the respondent in the suit and hence, the jurisdiction of the civil
court could not be said to be ousted, as was contended by the appellant. It was Mr
Bhasin's contention that, from time to time this court, even on earlier occasions,
has protected the interest of the passengers by passing interim directions of like
nature as are found contained in the impugned order.

Hal Employees' Union Vs. Presiding Officer and Anr

 Section 22 falls in Chapter V which deals with strikes and lock-outs. It prohibits
strikes and says that no person employed in public utility service shall go no
strike in breach of contract as enumerated in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (1)
thereof. Sub-section (2) prohibits declaration of lock-out for the circumstances
mentioned in the Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (2). Sub-section (3)
postulates that 'the notice of lock-out or strike under this section shall not be
necessary where there is already in existence a strike or, as the case may be, lock-
out in the public utility service, but the employer shall send intimation of such
lock-out or strike on the day on which it is declared, to such authority as may be
specified by the appropriate Government either generally or for a particular area
or for a particular class of public utility services.'

4. Section 24 declares what are illegal strikes or illegal lock-outs. It says that 'a
lock-out declared in consequence of an illegal strike or a strike declared in
consequence of an illegal lock out shall not be deemed to be illegal'. It is seen that
the strike continued until 4/5th June, 1978 and the lock-out was continued upto
18th June, 1978. In view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there was an
illegal strike in consequence of which the lock-out was declared by the
respondent-Management, it cannot be declared that the lock-out is illegal. On
that finding, the question arises: whether they are entitled to the payment of
wages for the period of lock-out?

5. The controversy as regards illegal strike and payment of wages for that period
was considered by this Court in Syndicate Bank and Anr. v. K. Umesh Nayak :
AIR1995SC319 by a Constitution Bench. It was held that 'no-work no-pay' is the
principle applicable to public utility services; wages during strike period would be
payable only if the strike is both legal and justified but not payable if strike is legal
but not justified or justified but illegal. The strike may be of different forms like
go-slow, work to rule, refusal to work overtime, irritation strike etc. we are bound
by the ratio of the said Constitution Bench judgment which applies to declaration
of the lock-out which is the consequence of illegal strike organised by the
workmen. The lock-out is both legal and justified in the present case. As a result,
the workmen are not entitled to the payment of wages for the period during which
the lock-out continued.

Workers Employed in United Bleachers (Private) Ltd.,

Mettupalayam Vs. Management of the United Bleachers
(Private) Ltd., Mettupalayam and anr.
The public are not content with rough grey material which they can wrap round
their waists. Sarees have to be gaily coloured. Dhoties have to be bleached.
Shirtings and coatings have to be given various tints and hues. The material must
be made unshrinkable and some people insist that they must be crease-proof. It
seems to me that when we speak of the cotton textile industry in its present stage
of development we must include all the processes upto the time when the final
product is ready to go into the godowns of the mills on its journey to the
consuming public.