There arose a dispute between the management and two rival trade unions over the dismissal of some employees. Both the trade unions served notices for strike on the management on 21st July 2018, specifying their demands

CS Professional · Labour Laws & Practice · PYQS · December 2019
There arose a dispute between the management and two rival trade unions over the dismissal of some employees. Both the trade unions served notices for strike on the management on 21st July 2018, specifying their demands and their intention to go on strike from 10th August 2018. An attempt was made to conciliate between parties involved and conciliation proceedings lasted between 26th July 2018 to 8th August 2018. A failure report was sent to the Government by the Conciliation officer. A large number of workmen went on strike on 10th August, 2018. The management of the company alleged that they forcibly entered the company's premises and other places and obstructed the work of the loyal workers. The workmen turned violent and therefore the District Magistrate issued prohibitory orders on 10th August 2018. On the same day, the company declared a lock out. Around a week later on 19th August 2018, the trade unions called off the strike, whereas company lifted the lock out on 27th August 2018. The company suspended those workmen whom it claimed to have obstructed the loyal ones and dismissed those who were convicted for violation of prohibitory orders. The Industrial Tribunal held that the strike although illegal, was justified, and the company was not entitled to dismiss the workmen. The company was directed to reinstate the workers except those who have been convicted under Indian Penal Code. It was also directed to reinstate the workers dismissed originally due to which the dispute arose. The company wants to appeal against this order by special leave to the Supreme Court. State the chances of the management in getting relief from Supreme Court, assuming that it is a case of a public utility service. Was the strike of the workers on 10th August 2018 consistent with the provisions ?

Answer & Explanation:

The conciliation proceedings shall be deemed to have concluded when the conciliation officer served its report to Government on 8th August 2018. The strike commenced on 10th August, 2018, is in contravention of the provisions of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 22 as mentioned above provides that no person employed in a public utility service shall go on strike in breach of contract and during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings. Here in the present case strike was started before the expiry of seven days after the conciliation proceeding. Section 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 categorically provides that a strike or lock-out shall be illegal if it is commenced or declared in contravention of section 22. Hence the strike is illegal under Section 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as it violates the provisions of Section 22 of the Act. 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, specially 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. In the present case company has got better chance to get relief from Supreme Court. The strike of the workers on 10th August 2018 in the circumstances as explained here in above is in contravention to the provisions of the Section 22 read with Section 24 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Topics: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic