Explain the kinds of strike under Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

The kinds of Strikes are provided below: i. Stay-in, sit-down, pen-down or tool-down strike In all such cases, the workmen after taking their seats, refuse to do work. Even when asked to leave the premises, they refuse to do so. All such acts on the part of the workmen acting in combination, amount to a strike. Since such strikes are directed against the employer, they are also called primary strikes. In the case of Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160 , the Supreme Court observed that on a plain and grammatical construction of this definition, it would be difficult to exclude a strike where workmen enter the premises of their employment and refuse to take their tools in hand and start their usual work. Refusal under common understanding not to work is a strike. If in pursuance of such common understanding, the employees enter the premises of the Bank and refuse to take their pens in their hands that would no doubt be a strike under Section 2(q). ii. Go-slow Go-slow does not amount to strike, but it is a serious case of misconduct. In the case of Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Jai Singh, (1961) II LLJ 644 (647) SC , the Supreme Court explained the legality of go-slow in the following words: "Go-slow which is a picturesque description of deliberate delaying of production by workmen pretending to be engaged in the factory, is one of the most precious practices that discontented and disgruntled workmen sometimes resort to. Thus, while delaying production and thereby reducing the output, the workmen claim to have remained employed and entitled to full wages. Apart from this, 'go-slow' is likely to be much more harmful than total cessation of work by strike. During a go-slow much of the machinery is kept going on at a reduced speed which is often extremely damaging to the machinery parts. For all these reasons, 'go-slow' has always been considered a serious type of misconduct." In another case, it was observed that slow-down is an insidious method of undermining the stability of a concern and Tribunals certainly will not countenance it. It was held that 'go slow' is serious misconduct being a covert and a more damaging breach of the contract of employment ( SU Motors v. Workman 1990-11 LLJ 39 ). It is not a legitimate weapon in the armoury of labour. It has been regarded as a misconduct. iii. Sympathetic Strike Cessation of work in support of the demands of workmen belonging to other employers is called a sympathetic strike. This is an unjustifiable invasion of the rights of an employer who is not at all involved in the dispute. The management can take disciplinary action for the absence of workmen. However, in Ramalingam v. Indian Metallurgical Corporation, Madras, 1964-1 L.L.J. 81 , it was held that such cessation of work would not amount to a strike since there is no intention to use the strike against the management. iv. Hunger strike Some workers may resort to fast on or near the place of work or residence of the employer. If it is peaceful and does not result in cessation of work, it will not constitute a strike. But if due to such an act, even those present for work, could not be given work, it would amount to strike ( Pepariach Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Their Workmen ). v. Work-to-rule Since there is no cessation of work, it does not constitute a strike.