The legality or illegality of a strike has nothing to do with the liability for deduction of wages. Even if the strike is legal, it does not save the workers from losing the salary for the period of strike. Comment with

As per Section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 "strike" means a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination or a concerned 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not grant an unrestricted right of strike or lock-out. Under Section 10(3) and Section 10A (4A), the Government is empowered to issue order for prohibiting continuance of strike or lock-out. Sections 22 and 23 make further provisions restricting the commencement of strikes and lock-outs. If a strike is in contravention of the above provisions, it is an illegal strike. Since strike is the essence of collective bargaining, if workers resort to strike to press for their legitimate rights, then it is justified. Whether strike is justified or unjustified will depend upon the fairness and reasonableness of the demands of workers. In the case of Chandramalai Estate v. Its Workmen, (1960) II L.L.J. 243 (S.C.) , the Supreme Court observed: "While on the one hand it be remembered that strike is a legitimate and sometimes unavoidable weapon in the hands of labour, it is equally important to remember that indiscriminate and hasty use of this weapon should not be encouraged. It will not be right for labour to think that for any kind of demand a strike can be commenced with impunity without exhausting reasonable avenues for peaceful achievement of their objects. There may be cases where the demand is of such an urgent and serious nature that it would not be reasonable to expect labour to wait till after asking the Government to make a reference. In such cases, strike even before such a request has been made, will be justified". Thus, if workmen go on strike without contravening statutory requirements, in support of their demands, the strike will be justified. In the beginning strike was justified but later on workmen indulged in violence, it will become unjustified. In the case of Indian General Navigation and Rly. Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1960) I L.L.J. 13 , the Supreme Court held that the law has made a distinction between a strike which is illegal and one which is not, but it has not made distinction between an illegal strike which may be said to be justifiable and one which is not justifiable. This distinction is not warranted by the Act and is wholly misconceived, especially in the case of employees in a public utility service. Therefore, an illegal strike is always unjustified. It is well settled that in order to entitle the workmen to wages for the period of strike, strike should be legal as well as justified. A strike is legal if it does not violate any provision of the statute. Again a strike cannot be said to be unjustified unless the reasons for it are entirely perverse or unreasonable. Whether a particular strike is justified or not is a question of fact which has to be judged in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case, it is also well settled that the use of force or violence or acts of sabotage resorted to by the workmen during a strike disentitled them to wages for the strike period ( Crompton Greaves Limited v. Workmen, 1978 Lab. I.C. 1379 ).