Whether the strike is legal? What are the provisions of a legality of strike? Refer the relevant case laws.

The legality of the strike is determined with reference to the legal provisions enumerated in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the purpose for which the strike was declared is not relevant in directing the legality. Sections 10(3), 10A(4A), 22, and 23 of the Act deals with strikes. Sections 22 and 23 impose restrictions on the commencement of a strike while Sections 10(3) and 10A(4A) prohibit its continuance. The justifiability of the strike has no direct relation to the question of its legality and illegality. The justification of the strike as held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Matchwell Electricals of India v. Chief Commissioner, (1962) 2LLJ 289 , is entirely unrelated to its legality or illegality. The justification of strikes has to be viewed from the stand point of fairness and reasonableness of demands made by workmen and not merely from the stand point of their exhausting all other legitimate means open to them for getting their demands fulfilled. The Supreme Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Majdoor Sabha, AIR 1980 SC 1896 held that the justifiability of a strike is purely a question of fact. Therefore, if the strike was resorted to by the workers in support of their reasonable, fair, and bona fide demands in a peaceful manner, then the strike would be justified. Where it was resorted to by using violence or acts of sabotage or for any ulterior purpose, then the strike will be unjustified. As regards the wages to the worker's strike period are concerned, the Supreme Court in Charakulam Tea Estate v. Their Workmen, AIR 1969 SC 998 held that in case of the strike which is legal and justified, the workmen will be entitled to full wages for the strike period. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Crompton Greaves Ltd. case 1978 Lab 1C 1379 (SC) . The Supreme Court in Statesman Ltd. v. Their Workman, AIR 1976 SC 758 held that if the strike is illegal or unjustified, strikers will not be entitled to wages for the strike period unless considerate circumstances constraint a different cause. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Madura Coats Ltd. v. The Inspector of Factories, Madurai, AIR 1981 SC 340 . The Supreme Court has also considered the situation if the strike is followed by the lockout and vice versa, and both are unjustified, in India Marine Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workman, AIR 1963 SC 528 . In this case, the Court evolved the doctrine of "apportionment of blame" to solve the problem. According to this doctrine, when the workmen and the management are equally to be blamed, the Court normally awards half of the wages. This doctrine was followed by the Supreme Court in several cases. Thus, the examination of the above cases reveals that when the blame for the situation is apportioned roughly half and half between the management and workmen, the workmen are given half of the wages for the period involved.