Labour Law

Strikes and lock-outs

Under the Guidence of: Mrs. N.P. Khan

By-
Name: Sarah Rehman

B.A.LLB.(H)

3rd year 5th semester

1
 Acknowledgment
I would like to express my gratitude to my Labour Law teacher,
Mrs. N.P.Khan, for making the subject so easy and understandable
to us that has helped me to put my best efforts to the assignment.

I also thank my friends who supported me and assisted me

throughout the making of this assignment.

2
 Table of Contents

 Introduction
 Iplications
 Relevant Sections of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
 Strike
 Ingredients of Strike
 Position in India
 Provisions of valid Strike
 Notice of Strike
 General prohibition of Strike
 Consequence if illegal strike
 Lock-outs
 Prohibition of Lock-out
 Conclusion
 Bibliography

3
Introduction

Every right comes with its own duties. Most powerful rights have more duties
attached to them. Today, in each country of globe whether it is democratic,
capitalist, socialist, give right to strike to the workers. But this right must be the
weapon of last resort because if this right is misused, it will create a problem in
the production and financial profit of the industry. This would ultimately affect
the economy of the country. Today, most of the countries, especially India, are
dependent upon foreign investment and under these circumstances it is
necessary that countries who seeks foreign investment must keep some
safeguard in there 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 and with this right statutory restriction is attached in the industrial
dispute Act, 1947.

Strike is collective stoppage of work by work by workmen in order to bring

pressure upon those who depend upon the sale or purchase of the product of
work. Because it is an expensive weapon th strike is generally the labour’s last
resort in connection with industrial controversies.

Lockout is a weapon in the hands of the employer, similar to that of strike in

the armory of workman used for compelling persons employed by him to accept
his terms and conditions of or affecting employment. In lockout an employer
shuts down his place of business as a result of reprisal, or as an instrument of
coercion or as a mode of exerting pressure upon the employes with a view to
dictate his own terms to them.

4
Implications
In any Industrial endeavour co-operation of labour and capital is quite essential
for its success, although they have interests contrary to each other. They have
different strategies and weapons to ventilate their grievances and safeguard
their interests. These democratic weapons often used by them are strikes and
lock-outs. Just as strike is a weapon available to employees for enforcing their
Industrial demands, a lock-out is a weapon available to the employer to
persuade by a coercive process to see his point of view and to accept his
demands. In the struggle between capital and labour, as the weapon of strike
is available to labour and is often used by it, so is the weapon of lock-out
available to the employer and can be used by him.

Relevant Sections of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Section 22. Prohibition of strikes and lock-outs.-This section applies to the

strikes or lockouts in industries carrying on public utility service. Strike or
lockout in this section is not absolutely prohibited but certain requirements are
to be fulfilled by the workmen before resorting to strike or by the employers
before locking out the place of business.
Section 22:
(1) No person employedin a public utility service shall go on strike in breach of
contract-
(a) without giving to the employer notice of strike, asherein-after provided,
within six weeks beforestriking; or
(b) within fourteen days of giving such notice; or
(c) before the expiry of the date of strike specified in anysuch notice as
aforesaid; or

5
(d) during the pendency of any conciliation proceedingsbefore a conciliation
officer and seven days after theconclusion of such proceedings.
(2) No employer carrying on any public utility service shalllock-out any of his
workmen--
(a) without giving them notice of lock-out as hereinafterprovided, within six
weeks before locking out; or
(b) within fourteen days of giving such notice; or
(c) before the expiry of the date of lock-out specified inany such notice as
aforesaid; or
(d) during the pendency of any conciliation proceedingsbefore a conciliation
officer and seven days after theconclusion of such proceedings.s
(3) The notice of lock-out or strike under this section shall notbe necessary
where there is already in existence a strike or, as thecase may be, lock-out in the
public utility service, but the employershall send intimation of such lock-out or
strike on the day on whichit is declared, to such authority as may be specified
by theappropriate Government either generally or for a particular area orfor a
particular class of public utility services.
(4) The notice of strike referred to in sub-section (1) shall begiven by such
number of persons to such person or persons and in suchmanner as may be
prescribed.
(5) The notice of lock-out referred to in sub-section (2) shallbe given in such
manner as may be prescribed.
(6) If on any day an employer receives from any persons employedby him any
such notices as are referred to in sub-section (1) or givesto any persons
employed by him any such notices as are referred to insub-section (2), he shall
within five days thereof report to theappropriate Government or to such
authority as that Government mayprescribe the number of such notices received
or given on that day.

6
Section 23.General prohibition of strikes and lock-outs-
The prohibition against strikes and lockouts is contained in section 23 is general
in nature. It applies to both public utility and non public utility establishments.
Section 23:No workman whois employed in any industrial establishment shall
go on strike inbreach of contract and no employer of any such workman shall
declare alock-out--
(a) during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before aBoard and seven
days after the conclusion of suchproceedings;
(b) during the pendency of proceedings before:
1.[a LabourCourt, Tribunal or National Tribunal] and two monthsafter the
conclusion of such proceedings;
3.[(bb) during the pendency of arbitration proceedingsbefore an arbitrator and
two months after theconclusion of such proceedings, where a notification
has been issued under sub-section (3A) of section 10A;

(c) during any period in which a settlement or award is inoperation, in respect of

any of the matters covered bythe settlement or award.

Section 24. Illegal strikes and lock-outs.-

(1) A strike or a lock-outshall be illegal if--
(i) it is commenced or declared in contravention of section22 or section 23; or
(ii) it is continued in contravention of an order made undersub-section (3) of
section 10 1*[or sub-section (4A) ofsection 10A].
(2) Where a strike or lock-out in pursuance of an industrialdispute has already
commenced and is in existence at the time of thereference of the dispute to a
Board, 1*[an arbitrator, a] 2*[LabourCourt, Tribunal or National Tribunal], the
continuance of such strikeor lock-out shall not be deemed to be illegal, provided
that suchstrike or lock-out was not at its commencement in contravention of

7
theprovisions of this Act or the continuance thereof was not prohibitedunder
sub-section (3) of section 10 1*[or sub-section (4A) of section
10A].
(3) A lock-out declared in consequence of an illegal strike or astrike declared in
consequence of an illegal lock-out shall not bedeemed to be illegal.

Section 25. Prohibition of financial aid to illegal strikes and lockouts.-

This section prohibits financial aid to illegal strikes and lock-outs. It says that:
Section 25:No person shall knowingly expend or apply any money in direct
furtherance of support of any illegal strike or lock-out.

Strike
Strike is one of the oldest and the most effective weapons of labour in its
struggle with capital for securing economic justice. The basic strength of a
strike lies in the labour’s privilege to quit work and thus brings a forced
readjustment of conditions of employment[5]. It owes its origin to old English
words ‘Striken to go’. In common parlance it means hit, impress, occur to, to
quit work on a trade dispute. The latter meaning is traceable to 1768. Later on
it varied to ‘strike of work’. The composite idea of quitting work or withdrawal
of work as a coercive act could be gathered in the use of word as a verb as well
as adjective. The definition and use of the word ‘strike’ has been undergoing
constant transformation around the basic concept of stoppage of work or
putting of work by employees in their economic struggle with capital[6].

8
The term ‘strike’ has been defined in a wide variety of branches of human
knowledge, viz. etymology, sociology, political economy, law and political
science

Strike has been defined in Section 2 (q) of the Industrial Disputes Act as
under—
“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.”

The analysis of the definition would show that there are the following essential
requirements for the existence of a strike:
(1) There must be cessation of work.
(2) The cessation of work must be by a body of persons employed in any
industry;
(3) The strikers must have been acting in combination;
(4) The strikers must be working in any establishment which can be called
industry within the meaning of Section 2(j); or
(5) There must be a concerted refusal; or
(6) 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;
(7) They must stop work for some demands relating to employment, non-
employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of labour of the
workmen.

9
Ingredients of Strike
Cessation of Work:-
This is most significant characteristic of the concept of strike. It has been
variedly expressed as ’abandonment’, stoppage’, ‘omission of performance of
duties of their posts’, ‘hampering or reducing normal works’, ‘hindrance to the
working or suspension of work, discontinuing the employment or breaking
their contract of service or refusing or failing to return to or resume
employment or refusing or failing to accept engagement for any work which
they are usually employed for. Thus what required for strike is that there must
be stoppage of work or there must be refusal to continue to work or to accept
employment by any number of persons employed for the work but the refusal
must be concerted or under a common understanding.The cessation of work
may take any form. It must, however, be temporary and not for ever and it
must be voluntary. No duration can be fixed for this. If the cessation of work is
as a result of renunciation of work or relinquishment of the strikers’ status or
relationship, it is not strike. Permanent cessation of work would result in
termination of the contract of work which is alien to the underlying sanction of
strike retaining contractual relationship during the strike periods. Cessation of
work is not a cessation of contract of employment.

Concerted action
Another important ingredient of the strike is a concerted action. The workers
must act under a common understanding. The cessation of work by a body of
persons employed in any industry in combination is a strike. Thus in a strike it
must be proved that there was cessation of work or stoppage of work under a
common understanding or it was a concerted action of the workers or there
was cessation of work by workers acting in combination. Stoppage of work by

10
workers individually does not amount to strike. the concerted refusal or refusal
under a common understanding to continue to work or to accept employment
or to resume work by any number of persons is a strike. One thing must be
kept in mind that the refusal of work means refusal to perform duties which
the workers are required to perform. If the workers are at liberty to do a
particular work or not to do a work their refusal to work does not amount to
strike. For example, over-time work, if it is the duty or workers to do overtime
work necessarily because it is the practice of that establishment to take
overtime work from the workers in that case refusal to work overtime would
amount to strike otherwise not. Thus the test to determine whether refusal to
do overtime work constitutes a strike or not would depend upon whether
overtime was habitually worked in that industry.[8]

The strike is illegal

1. if it is in breach of Contract of Employment.
2. if it is in Public Utility Services.
3. if Notice under Section 22(1) is not given.
4. if commenced during Award or settlement period.
5. if commenced During or within 7 days of completion of Conciliation
Proceedings.
6. if commenced During or within Two months of completion of Adjudication
Proceedings.

11
Position in India
In India unlike America right to strike is not expressly recognized by the law.
The trade union Act, 1926 for the first time provided limited right to strike by
legalizing certain activities of a registered trade union in furtherance of a trade
dispute which otherwise breach of common economic law. Now days a right to
strike is recognized only to limited extent permissible under the limits laid
down by the law itself, as a legitimate weapon of Trade Unions.

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. In the All India Bank Employees Association v.
National Industrial Tribunal1 , the Supreme Court held,

"the right to strike or right to declare lock out may be controlled or restricted
by appropriate industrial legislation and the validity of such legislation would
have to be tested not with reference to the criteria laid down in clause (4) of
article 19 but by totally different considerations."

Thus, there is a guaranteed fundamental right to form association or Labour

unions but there is no fundamental right to go on strike. Under the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 the ground and condition are laid down for the legal strike
and if those provisions and conditions are not fulfilled then the strike will be
illegal.

1
1962 AIR 171, 1962 SCR (3) 269

12
Provision of valid strike under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947-
Section 2(q) of said Act defines the term strike, it says, "strike" means a
cassation 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 accept employment. Whenever employees want to go on
strike they have to follow the procedure provided by the Act otherwise there
strike deemed to be an illegal strike. Section 22(1) of the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 put certain prohibitions on the right to strike. It provides that no
person employed in public utility service shall go on strike in breach of
contract:
(a) Without giving to employer notice of strike within six weeks before striking;
or
(b) Within fourteen days of giving 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.

It is to be noted that these provisions do not prohibit the workmen from going
on strike but require them to fulfill the condition before going on strike.
Further these provisions apply to a public utility service only. The Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 does not specifically mention as to who goes on strike.
However, the definition of strike itself suggests that the strikers must be
persons, employed in any industry to do work.

13
Notice of strike
Notice to strike within six weeks before striking is not necessary where there is
already lockout in existence. InMineral Miner Union vs. Kudremukh Iron Ore
Co. Ltd.2, it was held that the provisions of section 22 are mandatory and the
date on which the workmen proposed to go on strike should be specified in the
notice. If meanwhile the date of strike specified in the notice of strike expires,
workmen have to give fresh notice. It may be noted that if a lock out is already
in existence and employees want to resort to strike, it is not necessary to give
notice as is otherwise required.In Sadual textile Mills v. Their
workmen3 certain workmen struck work as a protest against the lay-off and
the transfer of some workmen from one shift to another without giving four
days notice as required by standing order 23. On these grounds a question
arose whether the strike was justified. The industrial tribunal answered in
affirmative. Against this a writ petition was preferred in the High Court of
Rajasthen. Reversing the decision of the Tribunal Justice Wanchooobserved:
" ....We are of opinion that what is generally known as a lightning strike like
this take place without notice..... And each worker striking ......(is) guilty of
misconduct under the standing orders ........and liable to be summarily
dismissed.....(as)..... the strike cannot be justified at all. "

General prohibition of strike-

The provisions of section 23 are general in nature. It imposes general
restrications on declaring strike in breach of contract in the both public as well
as non- public utility services in the following circumstances mainly: -

2
(1989) I Lab LJ 227 (Karn).
3
(1958) 2 L.L.J. 628 Rajasthen.

14
(a) During the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a board and till the
expiry of 7 days after the conclusion of such proceedings;
(b) During the pendency and 2 month's after the conclusion of proceedings
before a Labour court, Tribunal or National Tribunal;
(c) During the pendency and 2 months after the conclusion of arbitrator, when
a notification has been issued under sub- section 3 (a) of section 10 A;
(d) During any period in which a settlement or award is in operation in respect
of any of the matter covered by the settlement or award.

The principal object of this section seems to ensure a peaceful atmosphere to

enable a conciliation or adjudication or arbitration proceeding to go on
smoothly. This section because of its general nature of prohibition covers all
strikes irrespective of the subject matter of the dispute pending before the
authorities. It is noteworthy that a conciliation proceedings before a
conciliation officer is no bar to strike under section 23.
In the Ballarpur Collieries Co. v. Salim M. Merchant4 it was held that where in
a pending reference neither the employer nor the workmen were taking any
part, it was held that section 23 has no application to the strike declared during
the pendency of such reference.

Illegal Strike-
Section 24 provides that a strike in contravention of section 22 and 23is illegal.
This section is reproduced below:
(1) A strike or a lockout shall be illegal if,

4
(1967) II LLJ 201 (Pat)

15
(i) It is commenced or declared in contravention of section 22 or section 23; or
(ii) It is continued on contravention of an order made under sub section (3) of
section 10 or sub section (4-A) of section 10-A.

(2) Where a strike or lockout in pursuance of an industrial dispute has already

commenced and is in existence all the time of the reference of the dispute to a
board, an arbitrator, a Labour court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, the
continuance of such strike or lockout shall not be deemed to be illegal;,
provided that such strike or lockout was not at its commencement in
contravention of the provision of this Act or the continuance thereof was not
prohibited under sub section (3) of section 10 or sub section (4-A) of 10-A.

(3) A strike declared in the consequence of an illegal lockout shall not be

deemed to be illegal.

Consequence of illegal Strike

Dismissal of workmen-
In M/S Burn & Co. Ltd. V, Their Workmen5 , it was laid down that mere
participation in the strike would not justify suspension or dismissal of
workmen. Where the strike was illegal the Supreme Court held that in case of
illegal strike the only question of practical importance would be the quantum
or kind of punishment. To decide the quantum of punishment a clear
distinction has to be made between violent strikers and peaceful strikers.

5
AIR 1957 SC 38.

16
In Punjab National Bank v. Their Employees6 , it was held that in the case of
strike, the employer might bar the entry of the strikers within the premises by
adopting effective and legitimate method in that behalf. He may call upon
employees to vacate, and, on their refusal to do so, take due steps to suspend
them from employment, proceed to hold proper inquires according to the
standing order and pass proper orders against them subject to the relevant
provisions of the Act.

Wages-
In Cropton Greaves Ltd. v. Workmen7, it was held that in order to entitle the
workmen to wages for the period of strike, the strike should be legal and
justified. A strike is legal if it does not violate any provision of the statute. It
cannot be said to be unjustified unless the reasons for it are entirely perverse
or unreasonable. Whether particular strike is justified or not is a question of
fact, which has to be judged in the light of the fact and circumstances of each
case. The use of force, coercion, violence or acts of sabotage resorted to by the
workmen during the strike period which was legal and justified would
disentitle them to wages for strike period.
The constitutional bench in Syndicate Bank v. K. UmeshNayak8 decided the
matter , the Supreme Court held that a strike may be illegal if it contravenes
the provision of section 22, 23 or 24 of the Act or of any other law or the terms
of employment depending upon the facts of each case. Similarly, a strike may
be justified or unjustified depending upon several factors such as the service
conditions of the workmen, the nature of demands of the workmen, the cause

6
AIR 1960 SC 160
7
AIR 1978 SC 1489.
8
(1994) II LLJ 836 (SC)

17
led to strike, the urgency of the cause or demands of the workmen, the
reasons for not resorting to the dispute resolving machinery provided by the
Act or the contract of employment or the service rules provided for a
machinery to resolve the dispute, resort to strike or lock-out as a direct is
prima facie unjustified. This is, particularly so when the provisions of the law or
the contract or the service rules in that behalf are breached. For then, the
action is also illegal.

Right of employer to compensation for loss caused by illegal strike-

In Rothas Industries v. Its Union9 , the Supreme Court held that the remedy for
illegal strike has to be sought exclusively in section 26 of the Act. The award
granting compensation to employer for loss of business though illegal strike is
illegal because such compensation is not a dispute within the meaning of
section 2(k) of the Act.

Lock-outs
The use of the term “lock-out” to describe employer's instruments of economic
coercion dates back to 1860 and is younger than its counterparts in the hands
of workers, strike by one hundred years. Formerly the instrument of lock-out
was resorted to by an employer or group of employers to ban union
membership: the employers refusedemployment to workers who did not sign
a pledge not to belong to trade union. later the lock-out was declared
generally by a body of employers against a strike at a particular work by closing
all factories until strikers returned to work. India witnessed lock-out twenty-
five years after the "lock-out" was known and used in the arena of labour
9
AIR 1976 SC 425

18
management relations in industrially advanced countries. Karnik reports that
the firstknown lock-out was declared in 1895 in Budge Budge Jute Mills.
Section 2(1) defines the term Lock-out. However, the present definition is only
a mutilated one. The term was originally and correctly defined in the Trade
Dispute Act, 1929. From the definition given in the Trade Dispute Act, the
present Act has taken the present definition but has omitted the words “when
such closing, suspension or refusal occurs in consequences of a dispute and is
intended for the purpose of compelling those persons or of aid in another
Employer in compelling persons employed by him to accept terms or condition
of, or affecting employment”.

With the omission of these words, the present definition fails to convey the
very concept of Lock-out. In Sri Ramchandra Spinning Mills v/s State of
Madras10, the Madras High Court read the deleted portion in the definition to
interpret the term lock-out. According to the Court, a flood may have swept
away the factory, a fire may have gutted the premises; a convulsion of nature
may have sucked the whole place under ground; still if the place of
employment is closed or the work is Suspended or the Employer refuses to
continue to employ his previous workers, there would be a lock out and the
Employer would find himself exposed to the penalties laid down in the Act.
Obviously, it shows that the present definition does not convey the concept of
the term lock out.

Lock-out, When Legal

The Act treats strikes and lock-out on the same basis; it treats one as the
counter part of the other. (Mohammed Sumsuddin), the circumstances under
10
(1957) ILLJ 90 Mad

19
which the legislature has banned strike, it has also at the Same time banned
the lock-out. Thus what holds good-bad; legal-illegal, justified unjustified for
strikes, holds the same for the lock-out. As such, the provisions of the Act
which prohibit the strike also prohibits the lock-out.

The object and reasons for which the Lock-out are banned or prohibited are
the same for which strikes are banned or prohibited. As such, lock-out if not in
conflict with Section 22 and 23 may be said to be legal or not legal. Sections
24(1) (iii), 10(3) and 10A (4A) similarly controls the lock-out. A lock-out in
consequence of illegal strike is not deemed to be illegal. But if lock-out is
illegal, Section 26(2), 27 and 28 will come in operation to deal with the
situation. The Act does not lay down any guidelines to settle the claims arising
out of illegal lock-out. The courts, therefore, have adopted the technique of
apportioning the blame between the Employer and employees. This once again
brings to the fore the concept of justifiability of lock-out.

The Statutory Definition

Section 2(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines “Lock-out” to mean:
The temporary closing of employment or the suspension of work, or the
refusal by an employer to continue to employ any number of persons
employed by him[14]. A delineation of the nature of this weapon of industrial
warfare requires description of: (i) the acts which constitute it; (ii) the party
who uses it; (iii) the party against whom it is directed; and (iv) the motive
which prompts resort to it.

20
Prohibition of Lockout
In the similar circumstances the lockout has been prohibited in the public
utility service. Section 22 (2) of the Act provides that no employer carrying on
any public utility service shall lock out any of his workmen:
1.Without giving them notice of lockout as hereinafter provided, within six
weeks before locking out; or
2.Within 14 days of giving notice; or
3.Before the expiry of the day of lockout specified in any such notice as
aforesaid; or
4.During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation
Officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings.

It makes clear that the employer has to comply with the same conditions
before he declares lockout in his industrial establishment which the workmen
are required to comply with before they go on strike. The conditions for both
the parties are same.

21
Conclusion
The right to strike is not fundamental and absolute right in India in any special
and common law, Whether any undertaking is industry or not. This is a
conditional right only available after certain pre-condition are fulfilled. If the
constitution maker had intended to confer on the citizen as a fundamental
right the right to go on strike, they should have expressly said so. On the basis
of the assumption that the right to go on strike has not expressly been
conferred under the Article 19(1) (c) of the Constitution. Further his Lordship
also referred to the observation in Corpus JurisSecundum that the right to
strike is a relative right which can be exercised with due regard to the rights of
others. Neither the common law nor the fourteenth Amendment to the federal
constitution confers an absolute right to strike. it was held in the case that the
strike as a weapon has to be used sparingly for redressal of urgent and
pressing grievances when no means are available or when available means
have failed to resolve it. It has to be resorted to, to compel the other party to
the dispute to see the justness of the demand. It is not to be utilized to work
hardship to the society at large so as to strengthen the bargaining power.
Every dispute between an employer and employee has to take into
consideration the third dimension, viz. the interest of the society as
whole.India in the present context of economic development programmes
cannot afford the unqualified right to the workers to strike or to the employer
to lock-out. Compulsory arbitration as an alternative of collective bargaining
has come to stay. The adoption of compulsory arbitration does not, however,
necessarily mean denial of the right to strike or stifling of trade union
movement. If the benefits of legislation, settlements and awards are to reach
the individual worker, not only the trade union movement has to be
encouraged and its outlook broadened but the laws have also be suitably

22
tailored. The existing legislation and Judicial pronouncements lack breadth of
vision. Indeed, the statutory definitions of “strike” and “lock-out” have been
rendered worse by a system of interpretation which is devoid of policy-
oriented approach and which lays undue stress on semantics. The discussion of
the concepts and definition of strike has sought to establish

that legalistic consideration has frequently weighed with the court in

interpreting and expounding the said statutory definition: We believe that
emphasis on literal interpretation resulted in ignoring the ordinarily
understood connotation of the term “strike” and in encouraging undesirable
activity. We now pass on to acts which constitute strike. Unlike the Industrial
Relations Bill, 1978 the three phrases used in the definition of "strike" in IDA
are not qualified by the expression “total” or “partial”. Further, they do not
specifically take into account go-slow. The Courts have accordingly excluded
go-slow from the purview of “strike”. However, the exclusion of go-slow from
the ambit of "strike" throws them open to the third party suits for damages.

23
 Bibliography

1. Labour Law and Industrial Law- S.N. Mishra

Central Law Publications, 25th edition 2010.
2. Labour Law- Avtar Singh
3. Handbook of Industrial Law- N.D. Kapoor
4. Labour Law- S.C. Jain

24