Right to strike

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

• The right to strike in the Indian constitution set up is not
absolute right but it flow from the fundamental right to form
union.
• As every other fundamental right is subject to reasonable
restrictions, the same is also the case to form trade unions to
give a call to the workers to go on strike and the state can
impose reasonable restrictions.
Strike and lock-out
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
• 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.
2. Definitions: STRIKE
• (q) "strike" means a
• cessation of work by
• a body of persons employed in any industry
• acting in combination or a concerted refusal, or
• a refusal under a common understanding, of
• any number of persons who are or have been so
employed to continue to work or to accept
employment;
“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;
Strike and lock-out
• Skillful use of these weapons, whether threatened or actual,
may help one party to force the other to accept its demand
or at least 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.
Strike and lock-out
• 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.
Strike
• 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.
• 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 ships
Strike and lock-out
• 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
• Strikes became common during the Industrial Revolution, when
mass labour 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
The Great Bombay textile strike
• was a textile strike called on 18 January 1982 by the mill workers
of Bombay under trade union leader Datta Samant.
• The purpose of the strike was to obtain bonus and increase in wages.
• Nearly 250,000 workers and more than 50 textile mills went on strike
in Bombay
• Dr. Datta Samant who is most famous for leading 200–300
thousand textile mill workers in the city of Bombay on a year-long
strike in 1982, which triggered the closure of most of the textile mills
in the city.
Consequence
• The majority of the over 80 mills in Central Mumbai closed
during and after the strike, leaving more than 150,000
workers unemployed.
• Textile industry in Mumbai has largely disappeared, reducing
labour migration after the strikes
Strike and lock-out
• 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
Strike and lock-out
• Buckingham & Carnatak Co. Ltd. v/s Workers of Buckingham& Carnatak Co.
Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 47
• 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.
Strike and lock-out
• Indian Iron & Steel ltd. v/s Its Workmen (1967)I LLJ 381 (Pat).
• 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.
• Ram Sarup & Another v/s Rex AIR 1949 All 218
• Held: Mere absence from work is not enough but there must
be concerted refusal to work, to constitute a strike.
Strike and lock-out
• 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, non-
employment, 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 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
Strike and lock-out
• In B. R. Singh v/s Union of India (1989) II Lab LJ 591 (SC)
• 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.
Strike and lock-out
• In T.K. Rangarajan v/s Tamil Nadu, (2003) 7 ACE 30
• 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.
Strike and lock-out
• 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.
Strikes
• The court’s oral observation was made during hearing of a
PIL by NGO Common Cause through Advocate Prashant
Bhushan, which has approached the apex court against the
recent strike of lawyers in the Delhi High Court and District
Courts on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Ram Jethmalani
• Meanwhile, senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing for the Bar,
said "not to work is also a constitutional right...".
• He, however, said that we can sit down in the family of lawyers and
decide the issue.
• Responding to this, the bench said that in a months time meeting of
the important sections of the Bar Associations be called to see if
problem can be sorted out once and for all.
Justices Kurian Joseph and Arun
Mishra
• A bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Arun Mishra said : “Our
view is that the lawyers should not go on strike. it’s like
Brahmastra (weapon created by Brahma).
• One should use it in a difficult situation, but now a days this is
being used frequently.
• There is also a constitution bench judgment of the Supreme
Court prohibiting strike by lawyers.
• This is a very serious problem, it needs to worked out”.
Strike and lock-out
• In Dharam Singh Rajput v. Bank of India Bombay (1979) Lab.IC 1079
(DB)(Punj)
• 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 (improvement)remedy
for conciliation.
Strikes are caused by differences as
to:
• 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 labour 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 labour-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.
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.
Strike and lock-out
• 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 Bandhs 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.
• Mysore Machinery Manufacturers v/s State AIR 1966 Mys 51
• Held: Where dismissed workmen were staying on premises and
refused to leave them, did not amount to strike but an offence of
criminal trespass.
Strike and lock-out
• Punjab National Bank Ltd. v/s Their workmen AIR 1960 SC
160
• Held:
• 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.
Strike and lock-out
• 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.
Strike and lock-out
• Sasa Musa Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd. v/s Shobrati Khan & Ors AIR
1959 SC 923
• Held:
• Go-Slow strike is not a “strike” within the meaning of the
term in the Act, BUT IS SERIOUS MISCONDUCT
Strike and lock-out
• 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 AIR 1960 SC 1258
• 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”
Strike and lock-out
• 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
Strike and lock-out
• 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
Toyota Kirloskar Motor (TKM) Pvt.
Ltd’s
• Workers at Toyota Kirloskar Motor (TKM) Pvt. Ltd’s two
plants at Bidadi near Bangalore refused to enter the factory,
• after refusing to sign an UNDERTAKING OF ‘GOOD CONDUCT’
that was demanded by company managers.
• This was despite the lifting of a WEEK-LONG LOCKOUT during
the weekend after a successful intervention by the State
Labour Minister and the Labour Department.
Toyota Kirloskar Motor (TKM) Pvt.
Ltd’s
• Prasanna Kumar C., President, TKM Employee Union, told The Hindu
that the demand that workers give an undertaking of good conduct
was “in bad faith in bad taste.”
• Mr. Kumar also said the continued suspension of 17 workers was “a
severe impediment to a meaningful agreement.”
• He said workers, who were supposed to enter the factory at 6 AM for
the first shift, refused to do so BECAUSE THEY WERE ASKED TO SIGN
THE UNDERTAKING.
Toyota Kirloskar Motor (TKM) Pvt.
Ltd’s
• The company announced the lockout after negotiations over
the annual wage, which was pending for over a year,
remained unresolved.
• While the company was willing to offer a minimum hike of
Rs. 3,050 per month per worker, the union was demanding at
least Rs. 4,000 per worker, the same quantum that they
received a year ago.
Lockout at Bosch plant in Bangalore,
India now two weeks old
• LOCKED OUT WORKERS AT BOSCH’S PLANt in Adugodi have
gathered across the street from the plant, where they are
conducting a rotating or “relay” fast
• For the past two weeks, the German-based engineering firm Bosch
Limited has LOCKED OUT 2,500 UNIONIZED WORKERS AT ITS PLANT
AT ADUGODI IN BANGALORE, so as to break resistance to the
contracting-out of the jobs of workers employed in 19 different
departments.
Lockout at Bosch plant in Bangalore,
India now two weeks old
• Bosch management imposed the lockout on September 29, 2011 the
day after the WORKERS HAD LAUNCHED A “TOOLS DOWN STRIKE,”
which consisted in their punching-in for work but refusing to perform
their regular functions.
• The “tools down strike” was the workers’ response to the company’s
unannounced contracting out of the work of an entire department.
• On Monday, September 25, when workers in this department showed
up for work, they found that the company had removed all the
machinery and were informed that they would be losing their jobs.
Lockout at Bosch plant in Bangalore,
India now two weeks old
• Bosch, the Indian unit of the German engineering conglomerate Robert
Bosch GmbH, is India’s largest manufacturer of diesel fuel injection
equipment.
• It employs over 25,000 employees and had revenues of over 92.70
billion rupees (US$188.5 million) in 2010.
• Representatives of management and the union, the MICO Employees
Association (MEA), met October 4 with Gurudas Bhat, the Karnataka
state government’s additional labour commissioner, but the talks soon
collapsed.
• This past Monday there was a further tripartite meeting, but the result
was the same.
Lockout at Bosch plant in Bangalore,
India now two weeks old
• The young worker understands that global companies have been
heavily investing in India and China because of these countries’ low
labour costs.
• Yet companies “like Bosch want more profit through outsourcing” so
as to exploit “even cheaper labour!”
• Moreover, even inside their own plants, management denies many
workers full-time status and benefits so as to lower corporate costs
and divide the workers.
Illegal lockout at Regency Ceramics
• THIS CASE IS ABOUT REGENCY CERAMIC, had been a leading
company in the Ceramics/Tiles/Sanitary ware Industry.
• The company from a long time was facing labour issues.
• The labour unrest which gradually took up pace in the year
2011, WAS A RESULT OF THE UNHEARD AND REPEATED
NEGLIGENCE OF THE MANAGEMENT TOWARDS THE UNION
AND THE WORKERS.
Illegal lockout at Regency Ceramics
• The labour unrest eventually gathered momentum.
• IT WAS IN THE YEAR 2012, WHEN THE COMPANY
DECLARED A LOCKOUT AT ITS PRODUCTION UNIT AT
YANAM.
Illegal lockout at Regency Ceramics
• No attention to the Charter of Demands
• The Management did not fulfilled their Promise
• Ways the Management used to threaten the Employees
• No Intervention was done by Authorities to protect the rights
of the Employees
Illegal lockout at Regency Ceramics
• On 27-01-2011, some workers and Mr. M.S. Murali
were discussing union affairs almost 300 meters away
from Regency Ceramic, it was then that some police
people came and dragged Murali to the jeep and then
he was beaten black and blue, and collapsed in the
police station.
Illegal lockout at Regency Ceramics
• Upon workers repeated persistence, he was taken to the hospital and
was declared dead.
• The death of the Union Leader agitated anger and violence among
the workers.
• The violence had erupted at Regency Ceramic and the house of the
SRI K. C. CHANDRASEKHAR, PRESIDENT (OPERATIONS), AND THE
FURIOUS MOB ATTACKED HIM, WHICH LEAD TO HIS DEATH.
Illegal lockout at Regency Ceramics
• Illegal lockout had been declared by the Company After
three days, on 31-1-2012, the management declared a lock-
out at the Regency Ceramics, while no prior notice for the
same was issued to workers.
• The MANAGEMENT ANNOUNCED THE LOCKOUT on the
instance that the workers were being in cooperative with the
management and resorted to an illegal strike, which had
affected the Company’s production capacity, also tried to
destroy the machinery at the company.
Illegal lockout at Regency Ceramics
• Regency Ceramic from then has tried to resort the company
to normal working conditions.
• The company has tried gaining its position back in the
Ceramic Industry in India
STRIKE
• Thus the definition given in the act postulates three
main things or ingredients:
• (a) Plurity of workmen;
• (b) Combination or concerted action;
• (c) Cessation of work or refusal to do work.
Bhaskaran v/s Sub-Divisional Officer
(1982) II LLJ 248 (Ker)
• Held:
• That posts and Telegraphs Department, being Public
Utility Service, cannot declare lock-out without
notice and that the employees of the department
cannot go on strike without notice.
STRIKE
• Section 22(4) in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
• (4) The notice of strike referred to in sub- section (1) shall be given by
such number of persons to such person or persons and in such manner
as may be prescribed.
• WHO WILL GIVE NOTICE?
• (i) By the President or Secretary or office-bearer of a registered Trade
Union or federation.
• (ii) Where there is NO registered Trade Union of workmen by AT LEAST
SEVEN REPRESENTATIVES OF WORKMEN DULY AUTHORIZED IN THIS
BEHALF AT A GENERAL MEETING SPECIFICALLY HELD FOR THE PURPOSE.
Bank of India v/s T. S. Kelewala
(1990) 4 SCC 744
• The Supreme Court held that where the contract or standing
orders or the service rules/regulations are silent on the issue of
workers’ entitlement to wages during the strike period, the
management has the power to deduct wages for absence of
duty when the absence is concerted action on the part of the
employees and the absence is not disputed, IRRESPECTIVE OF
THE FACT WHETHER THE STRIKE WAS LEGAL OR ILLEGAL.
• If the strike is illegal, the workmen are not entitled to wages or
compensation and they are also liable to punishment by way of
discharge or dismissal.
India General Navigation and Railway Co. Ltd.,
and Anr. v/s Their Workmen AIR 1960 SC 219
• The Supreme Court observed, “It is difficult to understand
how a strike in respect of a public utility service, which is
clearly illegal, could at the same time be justified.
• These two conclusions cannot in law exist, the law has not
made any distinction between an illegal strike which may be
said to be justified and one is not justifiable
Supreme Court
• IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT IN CASE
OF AN ILLEGAL STRIKE THE ONLY QUESTION OF PRACTICAL
IMPORTANCE WOULD BE THE QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT.
• To decide the quantum of punishment a clear distinction has to be
made between VIOLENT STRIKERS AND PEACEFUL STRIKERS.
• (1) Violent strikers are those who obstruct the loyal workmen from
carrying on the work or take part in violent demonstrations and act in
defiance of law and order;
• (2) Peaceful strikers are those workmen who are silent participants in
the strike.
Chandramalai Estate Ernakulam v/s Its Workmen
(1960) II LLJ 243
• Held: Strike is the last weapon.
• There may, however, be the circumstances where the
demand is of such urgent nature that it cannot be
reasonably expected from the workmen to wait till
after asking the Government to make a reference; in
such a case the strike even before such request has
been made will be justified.
Swadeshi Industries Ltd. v/s Their
Workmen (1960) II LLJ 78 (SC)
• Held:
• Strike for securing improvement on matters relating to
wages, dearness allowance, bonus, provident fund,
gratuity, leave and holiday may prima facie be
considered to be justified because it is the primary
object of a Trade Union to secure better conditions of
employment of the workmen.
Syndicate Bank v/s Umesh Nayak
etc., (1994) II LLJ 836 (SC)
• When there is a machinery for settlement of disputes but employees
or employers resort to strike or lock-out without having recourse to
the prescribed means, strike or lock-out is unjust of rules, it would be
illegal.
• Therefore, the strike or lock-out as a weapon has to be used sparingly
for redressal of urgent and pressing grievance when either no means
are available or the available means have failed.
• The justness or otherwise of the action of the employer or employees
has, therefore, to be examined on the anvil of the interest of the
society which action tends to affect tified and when there is a breach
Iron and Metal Traders Pvt. Ltd., Bombay v/s M.S.
Haskiel & Others(1983) II LLJ 504 (SC)

• Many strikers were instated but the RESPONDENTS WERE

SINGLED OUT BY THE MANAGEMENT FOR DRASTIC TREATMENT.
• The Tribunal found the action of the employer as discriminatory
and THEREFORE ORDERED REINSTATEMENT OF THREE WORKERS
AND AWARDED COMPENSATION TO SEVEN IN LIEU OF
REINSTATEMENT.
• The management filed appeal to the Supreme Court and the
Supreme Court held the approach of the Tribunal to be fair, just
and unreasonable
Disciplinary action against striking
workmen: -
• Normally participation in illegal strike amounts to
misconduct on the part of the workmen for which
EVEN PUNISHMENT OF DISMISSAL CAN BE GIVEN.
• In Model Mills Ltd., v/s Dhermodas, the Supreme
Court upheld the right of employer to dismiss from
services the workmen participating in illegal strike
under the provisions of the standing orders of the
company.
Can the employer dispense with the
service of workers consequent to a
strike: -
• The employer-employee relationship is not
terminated by participation in strike or by declaration
of lock-out.
• The purpose of strike is to redress the legitimate
grievance of the strikers.
• This right is recognized by the law and the violation of
this right cannot put an end to the contract of
employment by any unilateral process.
Strikes
• 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.
Strikes
• 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.
Whether workers are entitled to
wages during illegal lock-out: -
• In Krishna Sugar Mills v/s State of U.P., this questioned was discussed. The mill
was closed for two days consequent to the alleged assault of officers by some
workmen who created a panicky situation.
• The Tribunal held that the closure was lock-out which was illegal and
unjustified and so workers are entitled to wages during the lock-out period.
• The matter was agitated before the High Court which held that the lock-out
may be sometimes not at all connected with economic demands; it may be
resorted to as a security measure.
• In this case such a lock-out was declared without giving notice as was required
and that it was unjustified also being a retaliatory measure.
• SO THE COMPANY WAS LIABLE TO PAY WAGES DURING THE LOCK-OUT PERIOD.
“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;
Shri. Ramchandra Spinning Mills v/s
State of Madras AIR 1956 SC Mad 241.
• Held:
• If the employer shuts down his place of business as a
means of reprisals (an act of retaliation)or as an instrument of
coercion (the action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats)
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 (hostile and aggressive) there would
be a lock-out.
Lock Out : 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 down
Lock Out : Causes:
• 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 ill-treatment 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
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.
"LOCK-OUT"
• (l) "lock-out" means the 1*[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;
The Supreme Court
• The Supreme Court clarifies that the employer can resort to
lay off only in one of the cases mentioned in Section 2(kkk)
of ID Act whereas there is no such requirement in case of a
lockout.
• Also, in case of lay off the employer may be liable to pay
compensation whereas in case of lock out there is no such
liability.
Supreme Court
• The other important consideration in the context of lockout
is whether the employer-employee relationship is
maintained during the lockout or not.
• In Feroz Din v WB, the Supreme Court held that “refusal to
employ" does not amount to discharge like how a strike does
not mean that the employee has severed his relationship
with the employer
• Justification of a strike is a question of fact and has to be determined
for each case. Justification means “whether the reason for which the
strike was called was serious enough or had enough potential to
significantly affect the conditions of labour or terms of employment
or employer employee relationships".
• However, use of coercion or violence during a strike negates whatever
justification a strike may have
Constitution
• Though right to form union and right to freedom of speech
and expression are guaranteed under the Constitution via
Articles 19(1) (c) and 19(1) (a) respectively, the right to strike
is not derived out of it. However peaceful demonstrations
are allowed.
Strikes
• Though lockout appears as the employer’s counterpart to
strike, in reality the implication of a lockout on the various
stakeholders is very different from that of a strike.
• The employer can use a lockout as a strong weapon; at the
same time, such a move can harm the growth prospects of
the organization.
Strikes
• Also, the employer does not use lockout in the same way as
the union would use a strike.
• The union, as an institution, gets affected during a lockout.
• This effect is exactly the reverse of the effect of strike on the
union.
• The government’s role in the case of lockout is very different
from that of a strike.
Strikes
• The government would want to ensure that a lockout is
stopped at the earliest; the pressure from its side would be
more because of the political ramifications of a lockout.
• Also, it is in the employer’s interest to call a lockout
whenever an illegal strike is declared.
• The lockout does not necessary mean that all production is
stopped; however it ensures several benefits to the
employer.
Strikes
• The case examines the industrial relations problems at Toyota Kirloskar
Motor Private Limited (TKM), an Indian joint venture between Japan
based Toyota Motor Corporation and Kirloskar Motors. The case
discusses the various reasons, which led to the dispute between the
management and the employees of TKM.
• It elaborates the incidents, which led to the strike and lockout at the
company.
• The case highlights the growing number of instances of clashes
between the employees and the management of companies in India,
which is often guided by external parties such as trade unions and
political parties.
Issues:

• » Understand the factors that lead to strikes and lockouts at a factory

and the impact of such happenings on the employees and the company

» Study HR policies adopted by organizations to prevent labor unrest at

the workplace

» Examine the role played by the top management in ensuring peaceful

working environment

» Analyze the role of external parties such as trade unions; political

parties etc in disturbing the working environment in a company