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. Are there general rules prescribed for the prohibition of strikes and lockouts in public utility and non-utility service?
Answer & Explanation:
Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides that no workman who is employed in any industrial establishment shall go on strike in breach of contract and no employer of any such workman shall declare a lock-out: during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a Board and seven days the conclusion of such proceedings; during the pendency of proceedings before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and two months after the conclusion of such proceedings; during the pendency of arbitration proceedings before an arbitrator and two months after the conclusion of such proceedings, where a notification has been issued under Section 10A(3A); or during any period in which a settlement or award is in operation, in respect of any of the matters covered by the settlement or award. Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides additional safeguards for the smooth and uninterrupted running of public utility services and to obviate the possibility of inconvenience to the general public and society.
Topics: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Related Questions in this Topic
- Vijaykanth and Amar Jha were in the employment as driver in a university. The university later found that operating the ...
- Vijaykanth and Amar Jha were in the employment as driver in a university. The university later found that operating the ...
- Bharath, the Managing Director of a company unilaterally announced the target in the Production Section that 9000 units ...
- Kiran, the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman), was appointed in 2011 as a helper in TVS Auto Ltd. (here...
- Kiran, the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman), was appointed in 2011 as a helper in TVS Auto Ltd. (here...