S.N.D.

T WOMEN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL (JUHU)

LABOUR LAW

Page 1 of 28
NAME: RAMYA RAMASWAMY IYER
ROLL NO:19
CLASS:FIRST YEAR LLB SEMESTER II
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 27TH MARCH 2025
NAME OF THE PROFESSOR: DIVYA GUPTA MA’AM
ACADEMIC YEAR: 2024-25

Page 2 of 28
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I sincerely express my gratitude to Professor Divya Gupta for their

invaluable guidance and support throughout this project on Settlement of
Disputes, Strikes and Lockouts. I extend my thanks to SNDT Law College
for providing the necessary resources and a conducive learning environment.

I am also grateful to my family and friends for their encouragement and

assistance.

Lastly, I appreciate the authors, legal experts, and case law references that
helped me gain a deeper understanding of the topic.

Sd/-
Ramya Ramaswamy Iyer

Page 3 of 28
Page 4 of 28
STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
ACT, 1947
ABSTRACT
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 plays a crucial role in regulating industrial
relations in India, particularly concerning strikes and lockouts. Strikes, as defined
under Section 2(q), involve employees collectively ceasing work to protest issues
like wages and working conditions. While legally recognized, strikes are not a
fundamental right under the Indian Constitution and must comply with specific
procedural requirements to be deemed legal. Lockouts, on the other hand, are
actions taken by employers to counteract strikes, often used to undermine
workers' bargaining power during industrial disputes. The Act imposes penalties
for illegal strikes and lockouts, but a significant imbalance exists in the penalties
imposed on employers and workers. Employers typically face less severe
financial consequences compared to the greater financial impact on workers,
which raises concerns about fairness. Judicial interpretations, such as in Tata Iron
& Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen and The Workers of Delhi Cloth and
General \Mills Co. Ltd. v. Management, emphasize procedural compliance but
also reveal how these requirements may disadvantage workers, particularly in
terms of power dynamics during disputes. Despite its aim to balance the interests
of both employers and employees, the Act's application has often favored
employers, leading to a perceived inequity in industrial relations. This suggests
the need for reforms to ensure a more balanced approach, where both parties can
engage in industrial actions on equal terms. The effectiveness of the Industrial
Disputes Act ultimately depends on its fair and equitable implementation,
ensuring just outcomes for all stakeholders involved in industrial disputes

INTRODUCTION
Industrial relations play a vital role in the functioning of any industrialized
economy, and maintaining a cooperative relationship between employers and
employees is critical for sustainable economic development. Disputes concerning
wages, working conditions, and job security frequently arise between workers and
Page 5 of 28
employers across the globe, including in India. To address such conflicts, the
Indian government enacted the Industrial Disputes Act, of 1947 , which aims to
foster fair labour practices, manage industrial disputes, and promote industrial
peace. This legislation governs various aspects of labour relations, providing a
legal framework for resolving disputes between workers and management.

Among the core mechanisms outlined in the Act to manage conflicts are strikes
and lockouts— forms of collective action employed by workers and employers,
respectively. Strikes refer to the collective halting of work by employees, often
intended to pressure employers into addressing grievances or fulfilling demands.
Lockouts, on the other hand, are initiated by employers and involve the
suspension of operations to compel workers to agree to management’s terms

The Act lays down specific guidelines regarding the circumstances under which
strikes and lockouts are permissible. It enforces strict procedures, particularly for
industries classified as public utility services, where disruptions can have far-
reaching economic and social impacts. By stipulating these legal protocols, the
Act aims to balance workers' rights to protest with employers' rights to safeguard
their business interests, while ensuring minimal disruption to production and
services.

Beyond mere negotiation tools, strikes and lockouts reflect the evolving dynamics
between labor and capital in an industrial society. Over time, legal authorities
have scrutinized the use of these collective actions. The Act, in its essence, seeks
to mediate the rights of workers to organize and protest with the need for
industrial stability, ensuring that strikes and lockouts are reserved as last-resort
measures and comply with established legal standards.

STRIKE

Strikes are a key instrument for workers to collectively assert their rights and
demand better working conditions. In India, the legal framework governing
strikes is established under the Industrial Disputes Act, of 1947 (IDA), which
aims to balance the interests of both employees and employers. Strikes, defined in
Section 2(q) of the IDA, involve a collective cessation of work to address
grievances or industrial disputes. While strikes are a vital expression of labor

Page 6 of 28
 rights, the Act also imposes regulations to ensure they are conducted lawfully
and without jeopardizing industrial peace, particularly in sectors critical to public
welfare.

DEFINITION OF STRIKE UNDER SECTION 2(q)

According to Section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, of 1947, a strike is

defined as "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." This definition encapsulates the
essence of what constitutes a strike and highlights the collective nature of this
action. It is not merely an individual refusal to work but a coordinated effort by a
group of employees to achieve a common goal.

The definition provided in the Act is broad and covers various forms of work
stoppages, whether they involve a complete halt to work or a partial slowdown.
The emphasis on collective action underscores the importance of unity among
workers in their struggle to achieve better conditions and terms of employment.

KEY ELEMENTS OF A STRIKE

The definition of a strike in the Industrial Disputes Act, of 1947, brings to light
three critical elements that characterize this form of industrial action:

1.Cessation of Work: The most fundamental aspect of a strike is the cessation of

work. This can manifest in different ways, ranging from a complete stoppage of
work across an industry to a partial slowdown in specific departments or job
functions. The act of ceasing work serves as a direct expression of workers'
dissatisfaction and a means to disrupt normal business operations to compel the
employer to address their grievances. This cessation may be total or partial, but in
either case, it is aimed at exerting pressure on the employer.

2.Concerted Action: Strikes are inherently collective actions. The decision to

strike is not made by individual workers in isolation but is the result of a
collective consensus among a group of employees. This concerted action

Page 7 of 28
distinguishes a strike from an individual employee's refusal to work, as it reflects
the collective will of the workers to pursue a common objective. The strength of a
strike lies in the solidarity of the workers involved, as it amplifies their bargaining
power and ability to influence the employer's decisions.

3.Refusal of Work: A strike involves not only the cessation of work but also a
refusal by the workers to continue working under the existing conditions or to
accept new employment terms offered by the employer. This refusal is a form of
protest against the status quo, signaling the workers' demand for change. The
purpose of this refusal is typically to pressure the employer into addressing
specific grievances, such as wage disputes, poor working conditions, or issues
related to job security.

THE PURPOSE OF STRIKES

The primary objective of a strike is to apply economic pressure on the employer
to address the workers' demands. This could include demands for higher wages,
better working conditions, improved job security, or other employment-related
issues. By halting work, workers can disrupt production or services, thereby
creating a financial incentive for the employer to negotiate and resolve the
dispute. The strike is thus a crucial tool in the arsenal of collective bargaining,
allowing workers to leverage their labor power to achieve their goals.

Strikes, as outlined in Section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, serve as a
key means for workers to for their rights and improved working conditions. The
Act provides a legal framework that safeguards the right to strike while ensuring
it is conducted within the limits of the law. Important aspects such as cessation of
work, collective action, and refusal to work emphasize the unified nature of
strikes and their role in labour relations.

The Act seeks to balance the workers right to collective action with the necessity
of maintaining industrial stability. By establishing clear criteria for lawful strikes,
it ensures that such actions are not undertaken hastily, but as a final option after
other dispute resolution methods have been tried. Consequently, strikes play an
essential role in collective bargaining, enabling workers to assert their demands
while promoting industrial peace.8

Page 8 of 28
NINE TYPES AND KINDS OF STRIKES UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL
DISPUTES ACT,1947

Strikes are a crucial mechanism for workers to express collective dissatisfaction

and demand changes in their working conditions. The Industrial Disputes Act, of
1947, categorizes different types of strikes, each with unique characteristics and
legal implications. Understanding these types helps navigate industrial relations
and ensures compliance with legal requirements.

1.General Strike: A general strike is a collective work stoppage aimed at

compelling employers to negotiate. It usually follows a failed negotiation after a
formal strike notice is served. It is legal if conducted according to the Act’s
procedures.

2.Token Strike: A short-term protest, typically lasting from a few hours to a day,
to show solidarity or express grievances without causing long-term disruption.
Token strikes serve as a warning for potential further action.

3.Stay-in, Sit-down, Tools-down, and Pen-down Strikes: These strikes involve

workers staying at their workplaces but not performing their duties (stay-in, sit-
down), laying down tools (tools-down), or refusing to use pens in clerical jobs
(pen-down). These are generally legal, but refusing to leave after dismissal may
lead to criminal trespass.

4.Go-slow Strike: Workers deliberately reduce their work pace to cause financial
damage without halting work entirely. The Supreme Court in Sasa Musa Sugar
Works v. Shobrati Khan ruled that a go-slow strike is not a legal strike and is
considered serious misconduct.

5.Work-to-rule Strike: Workers strictly follow all workplace rules, intentionally

slowing down operations without ceasing work. It disrupts productivity and
creates pressure on employers without technically violating the law.

6.Quick or Lightning Strike: A sudden, unannounced strike in response to

immediate grievances. These are legal except in public utility services where

Page 9 of 28
advance notice is required.

7.Sympathetic Strike: A strike by workers not directly involved in the dispute

but to show support. Sympathetic strikes are unlawful under the Industrial
Disputes Act, as they interfere with the employer's rights.

8.Hunger Strike: Workers fast to compel employers to meet demands. The

Supreme Court in Pipraich Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Their Workmen recognized
hunger strikes as legitimate strikes if key workers are involved.

9.Gherao: A protest where workers surround and often coerce employers or

managers to meet demands. Gheraos are not recognized as legal strikes due to
their coercive nature, often leading to criminal behaviour.

Each type of strike under the Industrial Disputes Act has distinct legal
consequences and implications, shaping how industrial disputes are managed in
India.

LEGAL AND ILLEGAL STRIKES

Strikes are classified as legal or illegal based on adherence to the Industrial

Disputes Act's regulations.

1.Legal Strikes: For a strike to be legal, it must meet specific criteria:

In public utility services, a strike must be preceded by a notice served within six
weeks, and the strike cannot commence within 14 days of the notice.
Additionally, it must not occur during ongoing conciliation proceedings or within
seven days after their conclusion.

In other industrial establishments, strikes are legal if they do not occur during
ongoing conciliation, arbitration, or tribunal proceedings, or while a settlement or
award is in effect.

2.Illegal Strikes: Strikes are considered illegal if they:

Page 10 of 28
Violate Section 22 or 23 by failing to provide required notice or occurring during
prohibited periods.

Continue in defiance of orders under Section 10 or Section 10-A of the Act.

Strikes are a fundamental method for workers to advocate for their rights and
negotiate for better conditions. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides a
structured framework to manage various types of strikes, ensuring they are
conducted within legal boundaries. Understanding the different types of strikes
and their legal standing helps maintain industrial harmony and prevents legal
complications for workers and trade unions.

IS STRIKE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?

In India, the right to strike is a topic of significant legal and social importance.
While the Constitution of India guarantees several fundamental rights, including
the right to form associations and unions under Article 19(1)(c), the right to
strike is not considered a fundamental right. Instead, it is recognized as a legal
right, subject to various restrictions and conditions. In India, the right to strike is
not a fundamental right under the Constitution, despite the protection of the right
to form associations and unions under Article 19(1)(c). The Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (IDA) governs the right to strike, setting rules and conditions to ensure
lawful strikes that do not disrupt essential services or public order. While the
Constitution guarantees the right to organize, striking is not inherently protected
by law.Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have clarified that the right
to strike is not constitutionally guaranteed. In Kameshwar Prasad vs. State of
Bihar (1962), the Court ruled that the right to strike is not a fundamental
right. Similarly, in T.K. Rangarajan vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (2003),
the Court affirmed that government employees, especially those in essential
services, do not have the right to strike, emphasizing their public duty and
the potential harm to public welfare.

Strikes are further restricted in critical sectors like healthcare, transportation, and
public utilities, where disruptions can cause significant societal harm. Thus, while
workers have the right to form unions and protest, the act of striking is regulated
by laws like the IDA and is subject to various legal limitations to protect public
interest.
Page 11 of 28
Strikes, therefore, must be carried out in accordance with the law, balancing the
rights of workers with the need to maintain public order and essential services.

LOCKOUTS

Lockouts, like strikes, are a significant aspect of industrial relations, serving as a

tool for employers to assert their position in negotiations with employees. The
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides a legal framework for the use of lockouts,
ensuring that such actions are carried out in a manner that balances the interests
of both employers and employees while maintaining industrial peace.

DEFINITION OF LOCKOUTS SECTION 2(l) OF THE INDUSTRIAL

DISPUTES ACT, 1947

Under Section 2(l) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a lockout is defined as
"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." This definition encompasses several key actions that an
employer may take in response to industrial disputes, including temporarily
shutting down the workplace, halting operations, or refusing to engage workers in
employment.

Lockouts are often categorized into two types: offensive and defensive. An
offensive lockout is a proactive measure taken by the employer to counteract
potential worker actions, such as a strike or a demand for higher wages. A
defensive lockout, on the other hand, is typically a response to a strike or other
forms of industrial action initiated by employees. In both cases, the lockout serves
as a strategy for employers to exert pressure on workers to concede to their terms.

KEY ELEMENTS OF A LOCKOUT

Several critical components define the nature of a lockout:

1.Employer-Initiated Action: Unlike strikes, which are initiated by workers, a

lockout is an action taken by the employer. It is a deliberate decision by the
Page 12 of 28
employer to temporarily close the workplace or deny employment to workers as a
response to an ongoing or anticipated dispute.

2.Suspension of Employment: The act of locking out workers involves the

temporary cessation of work or the refusal to employ workers. This suspension
can affect all or part of the workforce, depending on the extent of the dispute and
the employer’s objectives.

3.Economic Pressure: The primary purpose of a lockout is to exert economic

pressure on workers to accept the employer’s terms. By suspending operations
and withholding wages, employers aim to compel workers to reconsider their
demands or to accept conditions that are more favourable to the employer.

4.Prohibition in Certain Industries: The Act also prohibits lockouts in certain

industries, as outlined in Schedule I. These are industries deemed essential for the
public or the economy, and the prohibition aims to prevent disruptions that could

have far-reaching consequences.

THE PURPOSE OF LOCKOUT

Lockouts are employer-initiated actions used to exert economic pressure on

workers during industrial disputes by temporarily closing the workplace or
suspending operations. The primary purpose is to compel workers to accept
the employer's terms, often in response to strikes or stalled negotiations.
LEGAL LOCKOUTS AND ILLEGAL LOCKOUTS

Lockouts are classified as legal or illegal based on adherence to the Industrial

Disputes Act's regulations.

•A legal lockout, as defined under Section 2(l) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, is an employer-initiated action involving the temporary closure of a
workplace or suspension of work to compel workers to accept the employer’s
terms. For a lockout to be legal, employers must adhere to specific procedural
requirements, including providing prior notice and obtaining government
permission. Legal lockouts must also comply with restrictions, such as not being

Page 13 of 28
implemented during ongoing conciliation or adjudication proceedings. Failure to
follow these procedures can render a lockout illegal, resulting in penalties and
legal consequences.

•Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a lockout is deemed illegal if it fails to
adhere to specific guidelines. This includes violating the mandatory 14-day notice
period, especially in public utility services, which prevents abrupt disruptions
without adequate notice to workers and authorities. Additionally, lockouts are
prohibited during ongoing conciliation or adjudication proceedings, ensuring that
disputes are resolved through legal channels rather than coercion. Furthermore,
lockouts declared during the post- proceedings period specified in Section 23 are
also illegal, as this period is designed to allow for negotiation and resolution after
formal proceedings conclude.

Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, lockouts are a significant tool for
employers but are strictly regulated to prevent misuse. They can only be used as a
last resort after other dispute resolution methods have been exhausted. The Act
ensures that lockouts are not arbitrary and helps balance employer rights with
worker protections, thereby maintaining industrial peace and fairness.

IS LOCKOUT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?

In India, lockout is not considered a fundamental right under the

Constitution. Instead, it is governed by statutory laws, particularly the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. A lockout refers to the temporary closure of a place of
employment or the suspension of work by an employer, usually in response to
labour disputes or strikes. While employers have the legal right to declare a
lockout, this right is regulated and subject to specific conditions laid down in the
law.

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides the framework for the legality of
lockouts, particularly in sectors classified as public utility services such as water,
electricity, healthcare, and transportation. In these sectors, employers are required
to provide prior notice before initiating a lockout. Additionally, lockouts cannot
be declared during the pendency of conciliation or adjudication proceedings or
when a settlement is in force, as doing so would render the lockout illegal.
Page 14 of 28
While lockouts are recognized under Indian law, they are not fundamental rights.
Employers can exercise the right to lockout, but they must do so within the legal
framework established by statutory provisions.

PROHIBITION OF STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS UNDER THE

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a key piece of legislation governing

industrial relations in India, particularly in managing strikes and lockouts. It lays
down specific provisions to regulate these actions and ensure industrial harmony,
particularly in public utility services and during dispute resolution processes.

PROHIBITION OF STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS

1.Strikes in Public Utility Services (Section 22):

Section 22 of the Act imposes strict restrictions on strikes in public utility

services, such as water supply, electricity, and transport. Employees in these
sectors must follow a defined legal process before striking. They must issue a
notice to their employer at least six weeks before the strike and wait 14 days after
the notice before proceeding. Strikes are prohibited during the pendency of
conciliation proceedings and for seven days after these proceedings conclude. In
case of an ongoing strike or lockout, the employer is required to inform the
appropriate government authority on the day the strike or lockout is declared.

2.General Prohibition of Strikes and Lockouts (Section 23):

Section 23 extends the prohibition of strikes and lockouts to all industrial

establishments, restricting such actions during specific dispute resolution phases.
Strikes and lockouts are prohibited during conciliation proceedings and for seven
days after their conclusion. The same restriction applies to proceedings before a
Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal, and for two months after their
conclusion. Strikes and lockouts are also prohibited during arbitration
proceedings and for two months following the resolution. Additionally, strikes
and lockouts are forbidden while a settlement or award is in operation regarding

Page 15 of 28
the matters covered by it.

3.Penalties for Illegal Strikes and Lockouts:

The Act provides penalties for engaging in illegal strikes and lockouts to ensure
compliance. Section 26 imposes a penalty on workers participating in illegal
strikes, with imprisonment of up to one month or a fine of up to fifty rupees, or
both. Employers initiating illegal lockouts face imprisonment for up to one month
or a fine of up to one thousand rupees, or both.

4.Prohibition of Financial Support for Illegal Strikes and Lockouts:

Section 25 prohibits the supply of financial aid to support illegal strikes or

lockouts. Those who violate this provision can be penalized under Section 28,
which imposes imprisonment of up to six months or a fine of up to one thousand
rupees, or both.

5.Instigation of Illegal Strikes and Lockouts:

Under Section 27, individuals who instigate or encourage illegal strikes or

lockouts face penalties of up to six months' imprisonment or a fine of one
thousand rupees, or both.

In summary, the Industrial Disputes Act regulates strikes and lockouts to maintain
industrial peace, especially in essential services and during dispute resolution
processes, while imposing penalties to deter illegal actions and ensure
compliance.

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS

UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT

The Indian judiciary has significantly influenced the interpretation and

application of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly concerning strikes
and lockouts. Landmark case laws have shaped the legal landscape, providing
clarity on the conditions under which these industrial actions can be deemed legal
or illegal. The following cases stand out for their profound impact on labour law
Page 16 of 28
and industrial relations in India.

1. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1972)

The Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1972) case is a pivotal
judgment that delved into the legality of a lockout declared by the employer. In
the Tata Iron & Steel Co. case, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of a lockout
initiated by the company in response to disruptive actions by workers. The Court
emphasized that the lockout was justified as long as the employer followed the
procedural requirements outlined in the Industrial Disputes Act. This judgment
reinforced the employer's right to protect business interests through a lockout,
provided that due process was observed. The ruling set an important legal
precedent, establishing that a lockout, as a countermeasure to worker disruptions,
must adhere to the Act’s procedural provisions to be considered lawful. This case
has become a cornerstone in Indian labour law, guiding employers on the lawful
exercise of lockouts and ensuring that such actions are not arbitrary but grounded
in legal compliance.

2.The Workers of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Management
(1967)

The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Management (1967) case is
another landmark ruling that addressed the legality of a strike conducted without
prior notice in a public utility service. This case revolved around the workers'
abrupt cessation of work, which severely disrupted essential services provided by
the company. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled a strike illegal for violating
the notice requirement under the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly in public
utility services. The Court emphasized that prior notice is crucial to prevent
sudden disruptions that could harm public welfare. The judgment underscored the
need to balance the right to strike with the responsibility to maintain essential
services. It reinforced the importance of following legal procedures in strikes
within critical sectors. This case, along with others like Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.
v. Their Workmen, shaped the enforcement and understanding of the Industrial
Disputes Act. These cases underscore the importance of procedural compliance
and the judiciary's role in balancing the rights of workers and employers while
safeguarding broader public interests.

Page 17 of 28
CRITICAL ANALYSIS

One of the principal criticisms of the Act is its potential bias towards employers.
The procedural requirements for strikes, including mandatory notice periods, are
seen as mechanisms that can disproportionately favour employers. Section 22, for
instance, mandates a six-week notice period before a strike can be initiated in
public utility services. This extended notice period, while aimed at preventing
hasty actions, can be exploited by employers to delay or sidestep addressing
genuine grievances. This delay not only prolongs the conflict but also puts
additional pressure on workers who may be compelled to accept less favourable
terms or face economic hardship due to the prolonged dispute.

Similarly, the provisions governing lockouts, as outlined in Section 2(l) of the

Act, require employers to follow strict procedural guidelines. While this is
intended to prevent arbitrary or unfair lockouts, it also creates a platform where
the timing and implementation of lockouts can
be manipulated. The requirement for prior notice and government approval can be
used by employers as a strategic tool to gain leverage in negotiations, potentially
at the expense of workers' livelihoods prohibit strikes and lockouts. This power,
while meant to ensure industrial stability, can be prone to misuse. Decisions
influenced by political or external pressures can lead to arbitrary or unjust
outcomes, undermining the fairness of the dispute resolution process. The lack of
transparency in how these decisions are made further exacerbates concerns about
potential biases affecting both workers and employers.

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, plays a crucial role in regulating strikes and
lockouts and maintaining industrial peace in India. However, its current
provisions have faced criticism for potentially favouring employers and
presenting challenges in terms of procedural delays and discretionary power
misuse. By addressing these concerns through recommendations such as reducing
notice periods, introducing stricter penalties, and establishing an independent
authority, the Act can be refined to better balance the interests of workers and
employers. These changes would enhance the Act's effectiveness in managing
industrial disputes, ensuring a more equitable and efficient resolution process that
upholds the principles of fairness and stability in labour relations.

SUGGESTIONS FOR STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS UNDER THE

Page 18 of 28
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947

1.Mandatory Conciliation Before Strikes and Lockouts

•Suggestion: Introduce mandatory conciliation for all sectors before any strike or
lockout is declared.

2.Stronger Penalties for Illegal Strikes and Lockouts

•Suggestion: Impose higher penalties for illegal strikes and lockouts to

discourage non-compliance with the law.

3.Improved Awareness of Legal Provisions

•Suggestion: Implement educational programs to raise awareness about the legal

framework for strikes and lockouts among both workers and employers.

4.Enhanced Role of Government in Dispute Resolution

•Suggestion: Strengthen the role of the government in mediating and facilitating

settlements in industrial disputes.

5.Time-Bound Resolution of Disputes

•Suggestion: Introduce time-bound mechanisms for resolving disputes related to

strikes and lockouts.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STRIKE AND LOCKOUT

ASPECTS STRIKE LOCKOUT

Definition A strike is a temporary A lockout is the

cessation of work by temporary closure of a
employees to express workplace by the

Page 19 of 28
 grievances or enforce employer to compel
demands. employees to accept
certain conditions or
terms.
Initiator Initiated by employees or Initiated by the employer
labour unions. or management.
Purpose To pressurize the To pressurize employees
employer to address to accept the employers
employee demands such terms and conditions or
as better wages, working to counteract union
conditions, or other demands.
employment terms.
Legal Framework Governed by labour laws Also governed by labour
which outline the laws specifying
procedures and legality conditions under which
of strikes. lockouts are legal or
illegal.
Impact on Wages Employees may forfeit Employees typically do
wages during the strike not receive wages during
period. a lockout.
Examples Workers refuse to work An employer closes the
due to unmet demands factory in response to a
for higher wages. workers strike or to
enforce new employment
terms.

SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

INTRODUCTION
An important piece of law that controls how industrial disputes are resolved in
India is the Industrial Disputes Act. The Act, which was passed in 1947, offers a
framework for legally avoiding and resolving disputes between companies and
workers or trade unions. It attempts to advance industrial harmony, safeguard
employees' rights, and encourage positive workplace relationships. The Industrial
Disputes Act acknowledges the potential inherent conflicts of interest in the work
relationship and offers procedures for resolving them. It defines methods for
Page 20 of 28
negotiation, conciliation, arbitration, and adjudication in case of disputes and
stipulates the rights and duties of both employers and workers.
The Act addresses a variety of topics relating to labour conflicts, including as
pay, working conditions, promotions, disciplinary measures, layoffs,
retrenchment, and business closures. It is applicable to industrial facilities, such
as factories, mines, plantations, and certain types of service industries. A key step
towards guaranteeing a fair and equitable settlement of disputes at work was the
enactment of the Industrial Disputes Act. It acknowledges the significance of
maintaining an equilibrium of power between employers and workers, as well as
the need of collective bargaining and efficient conflict resolution procedures. In
order to expedite the settlement of conflicts, the Act established the roles of
conciliation officers, boards of conciliation, and labour courts/industrial tribunals.
These organisations are essential in mediating discussions, encouraging
communication, and making judgements when conflicts cannot be settled
peacefully.
Over time, changes have been made to the Industrial Disputes Act to address new
problems as they arise and to improve worker safeguards. These changes sought
to improve worker rights, speed up dispute resolution procedures, and provide
protections against unfair labour practises. The Act significantly influenced the
development of India's industrial relations. It has aided in conflict avoidance and
resolution, safeguarded employees' rights, and provided a legal foundation for
talks and collective bargaining. It has helped to preserve industrial harmony,
reduce production hiccups, and promote a stable and effective workplace.

DEFINITIONS
An industrial dispute is defined by Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 as any disagreement or dispute between employers and employers,
employers and workers, or workers and workers, and which is related to the
employment or non-employment, terms of employment, or conditions of labour,
of any person. This term covers every facet of a disagreement. It emphasizes the
differences of opinion amongst workers, in addition to the conflict between
workers and bosses. Conflicts often start because of unfair pay structures or
unfavourable working circumstances. Any issue affecting the employees, either
individually or collectively, might be the subject of this argument or conflict. It
must be related to employment, lack thereof, or working circumstances.
According to the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, the employer's workers are
granted a number of rights.
Page 21 of 28
Workman is defined as follows for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act of
1947: "Workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any
industry to perform any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical
or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be
express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in
relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been
dismissed, dismissed from employment, or otherwise terminated from
employment."
1.person is covered by the Navy Act of 1957 (62 of 1957), the Army Act of 1950
(46 of 1950), or the Air Force Act of 1950 (45 of 1950); or
2.who works for the police, as a prison guard, or in another capacity; or
3.who mostly performs management or administrative duties; or
4.who, while working in a supervisory role, earns more than 1,600 rupees per
month or performs responsibilities that are primarily managerial in character,
either by virtue of his position or the authority bestowed upon him.
An employment disagreement results in income loss for the employee. The
worker and his family may experience tremendous difficulty when their regular
source of income wages and allowances is lost. Employees who participate in
strikes and picketing also risk bodily harm, in addition to suffering the negative
psychological and physical effects of being compelled to stay at home. In the
event that the issue cannot be resolved in the parties' favour, there is also the fear
of job loss or employer retaliation.

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT

The following goals of the 1947 Industrial Disputes Act:

The Industrial Conflicts Act's main goal is to avoid and settle any potential
industrial conflicts that can develop between employers and workers, or between
those parties' respective trade unions. It encourages pleasant workplace relations
and offers a legal foundation for dispute resolution via nonviolent means. The Act
offers means for resolving conflicts in order to promote industrial peace and
stability. By reducing disagreements and disturbances at work, it aims to foster an
atmosphere that supports productive economic activity. The protection of
employees' rights and interests is the main goal of the Act. Fair employment
practises are guaranteed, employees are shielded from unfair labour practices, and
Page 22 of 28
enforcement procedures for their rights are established. The Act protects
employees against the arbitrary acts of employers by addressing a number of
issues connected to pay, working conditions, layoffs, retrenchment, and closures.
The Act attempts to provide efficient channels for resolving labour disputes. The
appointment of conciliation officers, conciliation boards, labour courts, and
industrial tribunals are all outlined in this clause. These organisations are essential
in mediating discussions, establishing agreements, and making judgements when
conflicts cannot be settled peacefully. The Act encourages companies and
workers or their unions to engage in collective bargaining. It acknowledges that
employees have a right to organise into unions and participate in collective
bargaining to discuss their terms and conditions of employment. It offers a
framework for calm conversations and coming to compromises.
The Industrial Disputes Act's coverage area is quite broad and includes many
topics connected to industrial disputes. It is applicable to industrial facilities, such
as factories, mines, plantations, and certain types of service industries. The Act
addresses topics including pay, working conditions, paid time off, promotions,
disciplinary proceedings, layoffs, reductions in force, business closures, and other
employment-related concerns. The Act outlines methods for resolving conflicts,
such as adjudication, arbitration, and conciliation. It outlines the roles and
responsibilities of the authorities participating in dispute settlement and offers
instructions on how they should conduct themselves. The Act also includes
safeguards to safeguard employees from unfair labour practises such victimisation
and wrongful termination. Additionally, it lays forth guidelines for the use of
arbitration or industrial tribunals or labour courts to resolve conflicts.

According to the Industrial Disputes Act, the following are the authorities:

Works Committee:
The appropriate Government may, by general or special order, require the
employer to form in the prescribed manner a Works Committee consisting of
representatives of employers and workmen engaged in the establishment.
However, the number of representatives of workmen on the Committee shall not
be less than one hundred in the case of any industrial establishment where one
hundred or more workmen are employed or have been employed on any day in
the preceding twelve months. The Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 requires that
the representatives of the workmen be elected in the appropriate way from among
Page 23 of 28
the workers employed by the business and in conjunction with their trade union,
if any.

Conciliation officers:
The competent Government may appoint as many conciliation officers as it
deems necessary, with the responsibility of mediating and advancing the
resolution of labour disputes, by publication of a notice in the Official Gazette. A
conciliation officer may be appointed permanently or for a certain amount of time
for a specific region, for a specific industry in a specific industry, or for one or
more specific industries.

Boards of Conciliation:
In order to encourage the resolution of an industrial dispute, the competent
Government may, if the situation requires, establish a Board of Conciliation by
publication of a notice in the Official Gazette. A board must include a chairperson
and two to four more members, depending on what the relevant government
deems acceptable. The other members will be chosen in an equal number to
represent the parties to the dispute, and the chairman will be independent. Anyone
chosen to represent a side will do so at that party's advice.With the caveat that, if
any party doesn't submit a suggestion as stated above within the allotted period,
the relevant Government will choose representatives it deems acceptable. A
Board that has the required quorum may take action notwithstanding the
chairman's absence, any member's absence, or any vacancy in the membership:
With the caveat that the Board shall not act until a new chairman or member, as
applicable, has been appointed if the competent Government informs the Board
that the services of the chairman or of any other member have ceased to be
available.

Courts of Inquiry:
When the need arises, the competent Government may establish a Court of
Inquiry by publishing a notice in the Official Gazette to inquire into any subject
that seems to be linked to or pertinent to an industrial dispute. A court may have
one independent person or as many independent people as the competent
government deems necessary. If there are two or more members, one of them
must be designated as the chairman. Providing that the appropriate Government
notifies the court that the chairman's services are no longer available, the court
shall not act until a new chairman has been appointed. A court having the
Page 24 of 28
required quorum may proceed regardless of the absence of the chairman or any of
its members or any vacancy in its number.

Labour Courts:
One or more Labour Courts may be established by the competent Government by
publication in the Official Gazette for the purpose of resolving labour disputes
pertaining to any of the matters listed in the Second Schedule and for the
performance of any other duties that may be delegated to them under this Act. A
Labour Court must only have one member, who will be chosen by the relevant
Government.

Conciliation boards:
The Act permits the establishment of a board of conciliation in the event that
conciliation is unable to settle the conflict. A chairman, two to four other
members who represent both businesses and workers, and the chairman make up
the board. The board looks into the conflict, hears from both sides, and attempts
to reach a compromise via dialogue and negotiation. The board presents the
relevant government with its conclusions and suggestions.
Voluntary Arbitration:
A dispute's parties may freely decide to have their case arbitrated. The Act allows
for the selection of one arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators that both parties agree
upon. The arbitrator hold a hearing, review the evidence, and provide an
irrevocable decision to resolve the conflict. The arbitrator ruling is legally
binding.

Adjudication:
The competent government may send the case to a labour court or industrial
tribunal for adjudication if voluntary arbitration or conciliation are unable to settle
the conflict. A judge or judges with experience in labour law make up these
judicial bodies. The court or tribunal has a formal hearing, considers the evidence,
and renders a decision that is legally binding. The choice may be appealed in
order to contest it.

Grievance Redressal Committees:

The Act also permits the creation of workplace grievance redressal bodies.
Representatives from the employer and the workforce often sit on these

Page 25 of 28
committees. They provide a venue for workers to voice and settle specific
complaints or conflicts that arise at work. A fair and efficient method for
resolving disputes between employers and workers is what the Industrial Disputes
Act's machinery for investigation and resolution of disputes strives to offer. It
encourages discussion, compromise, and rapprochement while also offering
channels for official adjudication when necessary. It's vital to remember that the
Act provides for considerable latitude and discretion in the execution of the
particular processes and machinery, which may differ depending on the state or
jurisdiction in India.

CONCLUSION

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, represents a critical framework for managing
labour relations and addressing disputes through strikes and lockouts in India. By
setting out clear guidelines for these industrial actions, the Act seeks to balance
the rights of workers to voice grievances and the need for employers to maintain
operational stability. Strikes and lockouts, while essential tools for negotiating
labour issues, are tightly regulated to prevent undue disruption to industrial
activities and essential services.

The Act’s provisions, including notice requirements and procedural constraints,

aim to ensure that both strikes and lockouts are conducted within a structured
legal framework, promoting fairness and reducing the potential for misuse.
Judicial interpretations, as seen in landmark cases such as Tata Iron & Steel Co.

Page 26 of 28
Ltd. v. Their Workmen and The Workers of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co.
Ltd. v. Management, have further clarified and refined the application of these
provisions, reinforcing the importance of due process and legal compliance in
industrial disputes.

However, the Act is not without its criticisms. Concerns regarding potential
biases, procedural delays, and the discretionary powers of the government
highlight the need for ongoing scrutiny and reform. To better address these issues,
recommendations such as reducing notice periods, strengthening penalties for
illegal actions, and establishing independent oversight could enhance the Act’s
effectiveness and ensure a more balanced approach to resolving industrial
conflicts.

In essence, while the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides a robust framework
for handling strikes and lockouts, its continued relevance and effectiveness
depend on its ability to adapt to evolving industrial relations dynamics and
address the criticisms it faces. Ensuring that the Act remains fair, efficient, and
responsive to the needs of both workers and employers is crucial for maintaining
industrial peace and promoting a harmonious work environment.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dr. S.R. Myneni Labour Laws 1 (1st Edition Asia Law House)

Singh A and Kaur H, Introduction to Labour and Industrial Laws, vol (4th
edition, LexisNexis 2017)

Srivastava S C, Industrial Relations and Labour Laws (8th edn, S CHAND 2023)

Law Bhoomi
https://lawbhoomi.com/strike-and-lockout/
Page 27 of 28
iPleaders
https://blog.ipleaders.in/need- know-strikes-lockouts/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-strike-under-industrial-dispute-act-1947/

Legal Vidhiya’ (Legal Vidhiya)

https://legalvidhiya.com/illegal-strikes-and-lockouts/

(M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd vs The Workmen & Ors on 5 May
1972)
(indiankanoon)

Page 28 of 28