A report on Legal Aspects and related study of

STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS

Prepared by Jariwala Chintan Bipinchandra 2013PGP166- section A

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, INDORE

Feb. 2014

Table of Contents
Summary: ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Strikes and lockouts: ....................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction and basic issues....................................................................................................... 1 Important Laws: .......................................................................................................................... 2 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .................................................................................................. 2 Study and Evaluation: ................................................................................................................. 4 Definitions: .............................................................................................................................. 4 Legality of strikes or lockouts: ................................................................................................ 5 Justification of a strike or a lockout......................................................................................... 7 Payment of wages and compensation for the loss to business ................................................ 7 Right to strike .......................................................................................................................... 9 Conclusion: ................................................................................................................................... 10 Bibliography: ................................................................................................................................ 10

Summary:
With a labour force of about 500 million, India is second only to China in this respect. The study tries to evaluate the efficacy of Indian labour laws with respect to strikes and lockouts. As per the labour bureau, GOI, the number of strikes has dropped from 295 in 2002 to 237 in 2012. However, number of man-days lost has increased from 9,664,537 to 11,690,606 (about 32473 years). The number of workers affected due to or involved in strikes, lockouts, retrenchment and closure stands more than 1 million (one in every 500), as of 2012. This seems to be a huge of matter of concern, for a country like India which is trying to boost its manufacturing and service sectors in coming years. With the help of a few cases, I will present my study on some of the pertaining acts.

Strikes and lockouts:

Introduction and basic issues
On 14th November, 1152 BC, artisans of Royal Necropolis at Deir el-Medina (Modern day Egypt), under the rule of Pharaoh Ramses III, walked off from their duty as they were supposedly not provided with shelter and food. The Egyptians later gave in on their demands. This marked the first ever recorded event in the history which can be termed as a strike. Ever since then, the industries have seen numerous violent, non-violent, stay-in, sympathetic, work-torules, tools-down, pens-down and many other forms of strikes. Strikes and lockouts are one of the most malignant tools in the weaponry of employees and employers to get their demands fulfilled. Generally due to such events, the employees, the company, the industry and the nation loses more than what might have been called for. Strikes cause an interruption in normal work flow of a company, which not only hinders its production and hence profits, but also creates problems in delivery schedule and business commitments. In common parlance, strikes hampers the credibility and perception of a company in its customer/vendor market. On the other hand, lockouts may disrupt the inflow wages for workmen most of whom live on marginal wages earned on daily basis. For these labors a loss of a single days pay might lead to a considerable impact on daily life. Some of the critical issues related to strikes and lockouts that have posed a matter of concern in Indias industrialization are as follows: The biggest issue is to know whether a strike or a lockout is justified in the very first place. Issues related to unfair labour practices, and improper compensation etc. should be resolved through tribunals, and courts; hence, it is important to decide whether going on strike or declaring a lockout should be, in any condition, legal or not? Is right to strike or lockout a part of right to freedom of association? Is it a part of demonstrative act in freedom of speech. Hence, can a strike be illegal? Different types of strikes have different impacts on business. Is there then a need for different sections of law pertaining each of these strikes? How to decide whether a strike or a lockout is/was for a justifiable reason or not? Even if a strike or a lockout is found to be for a justified reason, should it be considered legal, if it has created a considerable negative impact on parties not involved? Is a lockout as a consequence to a strike or a strike as a consequence to a lockout, legal? Does the legality of the former matter while deciding on the legality of latter? Jariwala Chintan, PGP, IIM-I Page 1

Should there be a prior notice mentioning a possibility of a future strike or a lockout? If yes, then what should be a proper time-frame? Also, should there be necessity to resolve the issues as soon as possible, once a notice is received by any party? What is the role of a trade union in a strike and should an individuals opinion subside against the decision of the union? If the strike or lockout is found to be illegal, who should then pay for the loss of wages and loss of business? What should be the penalty for an illegal strike and lockouts, and should it remain same throughout industries, or depend upon the pay scale of employees in case of a lockout and loss to company in case of a strike? All these and many other issues are to be taken care of for betterment of the relation between industry and labour unions.

Important Laws:
Some of the important laws governing the cases of strikes and lockouts are as follows: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2 states the definition of strike as 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. It states the definition of lockout as temporary dosing 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. Sub-section (3) of section 10: Where an industrial dispute has been referred to a Board,[Labor Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under this section, the appropriate Government may by order prohibit the continuance of any strike or lock-out in connection with such dispute which may be in existence on the date of the reference. Sub-section (3A) of section 10A: Where an industrial dispute has been referred to arbitration and the appropriate government is satisfied that the persons making the reference represent the majority of each party, the appropriate government may, within the time referred to in sub-section (3) (one month), issue a notification in such manner as maybe prescribed; and when any such notification is issued, the employers and workmen who are not parties to the arbitration agreement but are concerned in the dispute, shall be given an opportunity of presenting their case before the arbitrator or arbitrators. Sub-section (4A) of section 10A: Where an industrial dispute has been referred to arbitration and a notification has been issued under sub-section (3A), the appropriate government may, by order, prohibit the continuance of any strike or lock-out in connection with such dispute which maybe in existence on the date of the reference. Section 22 states the clauses applicable to prohibit employees and employers of public utility service companies (def. of public utility service as per section 2) from going on strike and lockout. According to sub-section (1) and (2) of section 22, No employee or employer of a public utility service shall go on strike or declare lockout,

a) Without giving a prior notice of strike or lockout to employer or employee, respectively, within six week period prior to strike or lockout., or Jariwala Chintan, PGP, IIM-I Page 2

b) within 14 days period after issuing any such notice., or c) before the expiry of the date of strike specified in any such notice as aforesaid., or d) during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings. If on any day an employer receives from any person employed by him any such notices as are referred to in sub-section (1) or gives to any person employed by him any such notices as are referred to in sub-section (2), he shall within five days thereof report to the appropriate government or to such authority as that government may prescribe, the number of such notices received or given on that day. Section 23 states the clauses applicable to prohibit employees and employers of any industrial establishment from going on strike and lockout. It says that, No employee or employer of any industrial establishment shall go on strike or declare lockout, conclusion of such proceedings;

a) during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a Board and seven days after the b) during the pendency of proceedings before a Labor Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and
two months, after the conclusion of such proceedings;

c) during the pendency of arbitration proceedings before an arbitrator and two months after the
conclusion of such proceedings, where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3A) of section l0A (Industrial Disputes Act 1947);

d) during any period in which a settlement or award is in operation, in respect of any of the
matters covered by the settlement or award.

Section 24: A strike or lock-out shall be illegal if(i) it is commenced or declared in contravention of section 22 or section 23; or (ii) it is continued in contravention of an order made under sub-section (3) of section 10 or sub-section (4A) of Section 10A. Where a strike or lock-out in pursuance of an industrial dispute has already commenced and is in existence at the time of the reference of the dispute to a Board, an arbitrator, Labor Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, the continuance of such strike or lock-out shall not be deemed to be illegal, provided that such strike or lock-out was not at its commencement in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the continuance thereof was not prohibited under sub-section(3) of section 10 or sub-section (4A) of section 10A. 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.

Section 25: No person shall knowingly expend or apply any money in direct furtherance or
support of any illegal strike or lock-out.

Section 26 states the penalty which shall be levied on anyone for going on illegal strike or
declaring illegal lock out. The penalty can be imprisonment up to one month, and/or a fine of rupees fifty, in case of a strike; and rupees one thousand, in case of a lockout.

Jariwala Chintan, PGP, IIM-I

Page 3

Apart from these, the following acts also contains important laws governing cases of strikes and lockouts, Trade Unions Act, 1926 Many other state government acts on industrial disputes and unfair labour practices.

Study and Evaluation:

Labour laws in India have proved to be more of an encumbering in nature than facilitating. The main reason for this being a lack of clarity, in definition and in sections deciding legality of issues. The same goes with laws pertaining to strikes and lockouts. We will evaluate each of the above section using cases for reference. Definitions: The definition of strike and lockout as per section 2, talks about any person working in an industry. However, the definition of industry as mentioned in section 2(j), says that it means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employees and then goes on to say that it, includes any calling, services employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation or workmen. The definition has been amended in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982, with a more pragmatic, comprehensive and realistic definition. The following case shows the importance of the definition of Industry in case of labour disputes and strikes/lockouts: Appellants: Secretary, Madras Gymkhana Club Employees' Union Vs Respondent: Management of the Gymkhana Club, October, 1967 The employees of Madras Gymkhana Club asked the management for a bonus, which was denied and the case was taken up in the Supreme Court of India. The court, on 3rd October, 1967 held that the management of Madras Gymkhana Club was not liable to pay bonus to its workmen, as the club, as per the definition of Industry section 2, ID Act, 1947, was not an industry. As per the court, the respondent is a non-proprietary members' club. It is organized on a vast scale with multifarious activities providing a venue for sports and games, and facilities for recreation, entertainment and for catering of food and refreshment. Guests are admitted but on the invitation of members. It has 194 employees with a wage bill between one lakh and two lakh rupees. As per the definition, Industry means any trade, business, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers, and neither of these is being carried out by respondents. Hence, no charge of Industrial dispute can be levied as the respondent is not an Industry. The above case apparently gives a clear idea about limitations of the connotation of Industry, which may not include services rendered by house-maids, servants, professional occupations like doctors, lawyers etc., employment of teachers, and so on. This might lead to a lack of interest on the part of employees for working in such establishments. The amendment in 1982, seems to have amplified the definition of industry, but there still needs a more clarity on the issue. Various other cases like State Of U.P and Ors. vs Jai Bir Singh on 5 May, 2005; State Of Gujarat and Ors. vs Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar on 31 January, 2001 have shown a scope of more inclusive definition of industry in cases of labour disputes and strikes. In both the above cases, the difficulty was to decide whether a state run Welfare Scheme or Welfare program falls under the scope of industry, while deciding on labour disputes. Jariwala Chintan, PGP, IIM-I Page 4

The definition of strike emphasis on acting together and not on pre-planning. The parties who resort to strike, may come to a common understanding without any formal agreement or consultations but nevertheless as per the definition the action must be collectively combined on the basis of spirit de corpse by the community of demands and interest with a view to compel employer. However, to grant to their demands of wages, allowances, hours of work holidays, bonus and the like, the length or duration of the "concerted" action is immaterial. The definition encompasses relatively simple cases of "cessation of work", "refusal to continue to work" or "refusal to accept employment". While negotiating for settlement of an industrial dispute, workmen may resort to the use of instruments of economic coercion to get their points of view accepted by the management. A difficult question arises when workmen deviate from traditional methods. The definition of strikes fails to differentiate between various forms of strike such as pen-down, tool-down, go-slow, work-to rules, etc. A stay-in or pen-down strike may even be a case of tress passing, similarly, a go-slow strike doesnt actually count as strike as per definition. In most of the other countries, there has been a special mention of such strikes and its forms. Legality of strikes or lockouts: whether a strike is legal or illegal has been clearly stated in section 24 of ID Act, 1947 in accordance with section 22 and 23. However, the main issue remains whether lockout of employment as a result of a strike, justified. Also, there are cases where illegal strikes are not convicted as they are found to be justifiable. Petitioner: The Punjab National Bank, ltd. Vs. Respondent: its workmen, Sept. 1959 On 3rd April, 1951, Mr.Sabharwal, a typist (and secretary of PNB employee union) at PNB applied for a leave of seven days which was rejected by the management. Mr. Sabharwal however took the leave anyways and absented himself from the job on said days. On his return, he was handed a charge-sheet for absence from duty, which he refused to accept. It was later delivered to him via registered post and on 17th April he was suspended from his job. The suspension was immediately followed by a pen-down strike in PNBs head office at Delhi, following which the bank suspended 60 other employees. This lead to general strike across many of the banks branches in Delhi and U.P.As a result, the bank asked the employees to report to their duty by 23rd April, and stated that a failure to comply would be taken as voluntary cessation of the job. On 24th April, another notice was issued stating that the strikers who failed to comply by the previous notice are no more employees to the bank. On 30th April, The labour commissioner of U.P. asked the workmen of PNB to immediately take back the strikes and continue with their job. Hence, the strike was taken back on 1st May with 813 workmen joining back. However, 10 employees reported back on 3rd May with a reason that the said information didnt reach their branch by the said time. The bank decided to dismiss them along with 140 more. These 140 employees were identified by response to a circular sent by the banks head offices to each of its strike affected branch, asking the branch manager to list down all the employees which they felt were not suitable for re-instatement. With the intervention of Prime minister of India, the case on 2nd July, 1951 was referred to industrial tribunal. The main questions which lay in front of the tribunal were: i. ii. Was the strike which started on 20th April, justifiable and more importantly legal? Was the refusal to reinstate 150 employees back by the bank, a case of illegal lockout and hence, invalid? Page 5

Jariwala Chintan, PGP, IIM-I

iii.

What should be the compensation for loss of wages for 814 employees who were reinstated and 150 who were dismissed? Who should compensate for the loss of business in case the strike is found to be legal?

The workmen appealed that the bank was trying to victimize the president, V.P., secretary and other higher authorities of the federation (union) with sole purpose of teaching a lesson to its employees. On the other hand the bank appealed that the strike itself was illegal, and hence the lockout is justified, along with the fact that the dismissed 150 employees were guilty of unpardonable violence, intimidation and coercion. The tribunal finally gave the judgment on 2nd Feb, 1952 in favor of the bank stating that, as proceeding of a previous case (1950) of industrial dispute between the federation of employees and the bank was pending at arbitration, the said strike was illegal as per section 23(b) and 24 of ID Act, 1947. The tribunal further stated that as per section 24, the said lockout of 150 employees hence, cant be deemed as illegal as it was a consequence of an illegal strike. The tribunal hence, gave a judgment that bank can refuse to reinstate the said 150 employees, however on the basis of compassionate grounds, the bank was asked to pay a compensation to the 150 employees for their dismissal. On further appeal of the employees the matter was taken up to labour appellate tribunal, which tried to answer the question that Does a mere participation of an employee in an illegal strike gives a right to the employer to dismiss him/her?The appellate tribunal said that the dismissal of 150 employees by the bank was illegal as per section 33, of ID Act, 1947 which states that the employer cannot dismiss its employees on charge of an illegal strike till the case is referred to and decided by a tribunal. Hence, On 4th January, 1955, the appellate tribunal asked the bank to immediately pay a compensation to 150 employees for their loss of wage and to reinstate 136 of the 150 employees. 14 employees were denied of reinstatement on grounds of violence and intimidation In 1958, the bank further made two civil appeals against reinstatement of 126 employees of federation, and 10 employees of union (U.P.) respectively, based on charges of trespassing, as the strike was a pen-down strike and hence, the employees occupied their seat without doing any work, and refused to vacate the office on the orders of the bank. The bank further presented evidence of the witnesses (its reinstated employees) to violence and intimidation of the said 136 employees. The 14 employees, whom the tribunal denied reinstatement, too filed an appeal. The above case which started in July, 1951 continued till September, 1959 and was referred to the Supreme Court. However, recently the department of labour under GoI has made the banking industry a public service utility as per amendments in definition in section 2 of ID Act, 1947. Hence, under the current law employees would be needed to give atleast 14 days prior notice as per section 22, making a lightening strike completely unjustified and illegal. Some of the learning I found through this case was that, i. The definition of a strike must have a clearer stance regarding pen-down, stay-in, and other different forms of strike. ii. The laws should have a clear mention about the reinstatement and compensation policy of the employees participating in a strike both illegal and legal. iii. According to section 24, a strike is illegal if there is an ongoing case pending between the employer and its employees. But since such a case might last for a long period, does it Jariwala Chintan, PGP, IIM-I Page 6

leave no choice for the employees, in the mean time, to protest other than going for an appeal. iv. And the biggest question of all remains, how can one decide whether a strike is justified or not, and what about the loss to the company if a strike is found to be illegal. The answer to this and many other questions related to strikes and lockouts are being sought through better labour laws and amendments in coming times. Justification of a strike or a lockout: The bigger question has always been that, what justifies an act of strike or lockout. What justifies the period or duration of strike. Is there a need for right to strike, or should strikes and lockouts be considered as a bane to industry. The law gives no information in this regard. Although as per section 22 and 23, it is clear that strikes and lockouts are not always illegal. Hence, given the condition every employee and employer has a right to strike. But, as we have seen in many cases strikes and lockouts can get way more violent than anticipated. In case if it gets violent, should the violence be then weighed in while deciding the justification of strikes? Section 33 and 33A of ID Act, 1947 answers this question somewhat, but not completely. There needs to more amendments in ID Act to make the labour-industry relations more formal and long lasting. In the case of 'Dabir (Et. S.K. Burman) Pvt. Ltd., v Their Workmen, it was held that justification of strike depends upon (a) the conduct of the employer also, the employee which includes provocation on the part of employer by high, handed action and unsustainable reasons for the strike on the part of workmen (b) the nature of the strike whether the peaceful of violent and (c) whether the strike was resorted to after exhausting all the means of redress. According to me, some of the conditions under which a strike or a lockout is justified are: If the employer denies the right to employees for forming a union. It should be launched only for economic demands of workmen like basic pay, dearness allowance, bonus, provident fund, gratuity, leave and holidays etc., which are the primary objects of a trade union. The economic demands should be prima facie reasonable. The demands should not be raised frivolously or on ulterior reasons. If some demands are not referred to adjudication or arbitration by the employers. A strike can be unjustified if the reasons for it are absolutely perverse and unsustainable. Payment of wages and compensation for the loss to business: The final topic I would like discuss, which might need some light in ID Act, 1947 is that of compensation or payment of wages for the period of strike or lockout. In thousands of cases of strikes, the courts have seen through years, the decision of payment of wages has been based completely on the opinion of the judges on the matter. There seems to be no written rule or law, which clearly specifies anything related to this matter. In T. S. Kelawala vs. The bank of India, the courts without even hearing whether the strike was legal or illegal and justified or unjustified, gave the decision that under any condition, the employees are not entitled to wages for the duration of strike. However, in cases like Crompton greaves ltd. vs. its employees and Churakulam Tea Estate vs. its workmen, the courts gave a decision in the favour of employees. General principles which are followed while deciding payment of wages are:

Jariwala Chintan, PGP, IIM-I

Page 7

Employees are denied payment of wages if the strike is found to be illegal. (however, illegal as it may be, but if the strike is proved to be justified, courts can ask for a compensation) Employees may or may not be entitled to receive wages in case of legal strikes, depending upon the justifiability of the act of strike Employees are denied payment of wages for a lockout, which is initiated in response an illegal strike (however, in case of an illegal, yet justified strikes, courts can ask for a compensation) Employees are entitled to wages in case of an illegal lockout. (however, in case of an illegal, yet justified lockouts, courts can deny payment wages) Employees are denied payment of wages in case of a legal and justified lockout. Petitioner: Syndicate Bank vs respondent: K.Umesh Nayak on 19 March, 1994 On 10th April, 1989 a memorandum of settlement was signed by the Indian Banks' Association and the All Indian Bank Employees' Unions including the National Confederation of Bank Employees as a resolution for the industrial dispute between the two parties. It mentioned a wage hike and other certain service condition for the employees at the said bank. The bank however, did not implement the said changes as per the settlement and as a result on 22nd June, the employee union sent a telex to the bank management calling upon implementation of the said changes without any further loss of time. In response to this the bank replied on 27th June that it was required to obtain the Government's approval for granting the said extra benefits and that it was making efforts to obtain the Government's approval as soon as possible. Employees and the bank reiterated the same conversation again on 24th July, this time the employees warning the bank of a possible future strike on 8th August, if the bank fails to fulfill their demands, but no strike took place on 8th Aug. even as the bank failed to fulfill the demands. On 18th August, the employee union wrote to the Bank that the settlements signed were without any precondition that they were to be cleared by the Government and hence the Bank should implement the settlement without awaiting the Government's permission. The Federation also, on the same day, wrote to the Bank calling its attention to the provisions of Rule 58.4 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (the 'Rules') and requesting it to forthwith forward copies of the settlements to the functionaries mentioned in the said rule. On 23rd August the bank reiterated the same that the approval of government was the reason of holding the demands. The matter was then taken for conciliation on 26th September upon the intervention of state labour commissioner, but no avail. Finally, on 1st Oct., the union gave their final warning of future strike commencing from 16th October, The strike took place as warned, and matter was taken to the High Court, where, the single judge said that as the bank is a public utility service, and as there was a pending decision of the case at conciliation, the said strike is illegal as per section 22 and 24 of ID Act, 1947. The judge denied any payment of wages to employees for the day of strike. Employees however filed a petition saying that there was no case of industrial dispute whatsoever as the settlement for the said demand had already arrived in April, and hence the section 22 of ID Act, doesnt come to play at all. The judge however dismissed the employees claim citing the T.S. Kelawala case in which the Supreme court gave the following statement: Page 8

Jariwala Chintan, PGP, IIM-I

A union has no right or freedom to demonstrate including a sit-in demonstration in property belonging to others. No one can be allowed his right as to prejudice the right of another The employees further appealed to the division bench of High Court, which gave its decision in favour of the employees citing the fact that there wasnt any case of Industrial dispute involved as the demands of the employees were already been accepted by the bank as per a memorandum and hence, section 22 cannot be applied. Hence, the bank was asked to pay the wages to the employees for the day of strike. It further said that the strike was justified in its entire means and so the payment of wages is unarguable. The case was further taken to the Supreme Court and statement made by supreme court on the case was: The principle of no work, no pay will be applicable if employees are purporting to be present but not performing their duty The case along with many other similar cases, displays the ambiguity regarding the payment of wages of employees for the period of strike. As far as loss of to the company is concerned, the law mentions as per section 26 of ID Act that illegal strikes are punishable as per the penalty decided in the section. This makes the employees not liable to any losses to the employers. This can be seen in the judgment of Rothas Industries v. Its Union. However, going further employers can file charges of violence, trespassing and other against the employees if such is the case.

Right to strike
Right to strike is been recently in news as the Union Labour Minister Mallikarjun Kharge gave a statement against strikes which was not received well by the unions as well as a few political parties like CPI and others. The main issue is that, should there be a right to strike empowered amongst every labour working in an industry. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 gives this right, however under some conditions of legality. In a country like India, which is dependent upon foreign investments for a good share of future growth, it is necessary that the country who seeks foreign investment must keep some safeguard in their respective industrial laws so that there will be no misuse of right of strike. In India, right to protest is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. But right to strike is not a fundamental right but a legal right. Unlike America, in India right to strike is not expressly recognized by the law. The trade union Act, 1926 for the first time gave the laborers a legal framework to form employee union; however it provided limited right to strike by legalizing certain activities of a registered trade union. In my opinion, the need for a right to strike depends upon the efficacy of the current labour and industry relations laws, and its impact on the employers and employees. Citing the current situation I think the laws should be amended to bring a clearer picture, however, there is no immediate need for a right to strike.

Jariwala Chintan, PGP, IIM-I

Page 9

Conclusion:
Strikes are a matter of protest and during a protest most laborers tend to forget their responsibilities, their duties and legality of their action. This leads to violence, trespassing, loss of customers, loss of wages, and many more issues which are far more destructive than the strike itself. Hence, the Industrial Disputes Act was made seeking a judgment on these crucial issues. However, as times have passed the act of strike has evolved, and the laborers now understand the legal scenario of striking. This has reduced the so called lightening strikes, but increased instances such as pen-down strike, tool-down strike, sit-in strike, and go-slow strikes. Seeing this and many more issues which have puzzled the courts on many counts, such as payment of wages, justification of strikes, compensation for loss, definition of various terms, etc., I feel a need for change in the labour laws. ID Act, 1947 is one of the pioneers among the labour laws in India. However it has been subsided on many times by State legislations and state laws like P.U.L.P. Act, 1970. This again creates an ambiguity regarding legality of strike in the minds of unions while deciding to go on a strike. Hoping for amendments in regards to many issues, I think strikes and lockouts are just one of the many industrial disputes that are a bane to the employee-employer relations, and care should be taken while deciding on such issues. The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed. Steven Biko

Bibliography:
1. Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, Act no. 14 of 1947, 11th March, 1947 2. Trade Unions Act of 1926, Act no. 16 of 1926, 25th March, 1926 3. Kaushik P.D., Bibek Debroy, Reforming the Labour Market, Academic foundation, 1st
January, 2005, pg. 130-135 4. Padhi P.K., Labour and Industrial laws, PHI learning pvt. Ltd., 24th December, 2011, pg. 83-84 5. Staff reporter, Judiciary has no right to ban strike, The Hindu, Kolkata, 15th February, 2013 6. Shrivastava Suresh C., Strikes and lock-outs in India: law and policy, Central India Law Quarterly [vol. 4:1] 7. http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1763716/, Punjab National Bank Ltd vs Employees Of The Bank on 10 April, 1953 8. Vijendra Vikram Singh Paul, Right to strike under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 legalserviceindia(online), vikrampaul@legalserviceindia.com 9. Ashwin Hemant Raj, SC's Right to Strike' curbs fundamental right, The Times of India, Bangalore, 12th September, 2003 10. http://www.manupatrainternational.in/supremecourt/1950-1979/sc1967/s670227.htm Secretary, Madras Gymkhana Club Employees' Union Vs. Management of the Gymkhana Club on 3 October, 1967 Jariwala Chintan, PGP, IIM-I Page 10