Strikes & Lock-outs — Labour Law I Notes

Strikes & Lock-outs

A strike is the worker’s ultimate weapon and the lock-out is the employer’s mirror weapon. The law does not ban them — it channels them, demanding notice and forbidding them at the wrong moment. Time a strike wrongly and it becomes illegal, stripping the workers of pay and protection.

Strike — what it is

A strike is a stoppage of work by a body of workers acting together, or a concerted refusal to continue to work, to pressure the employer. Under s.2(q) ID Act (now s.2(zk) IR Code) it is a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination, or a concerted refusal, under a common understanding.

Section 2(zk), Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (strike — close paraphrase of s.2(q) ID Act): “‘strike’ means a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination, or a concerted refusal … of any number of persons who are or have been so employed to continue to work or to accept employment, and includes the concerted casual leave on a given day by fifty per cent or more workers.”

Kinds of strike: general strike; stay-in / sit-down / tool-down strike (present but not working); go-slow (deliberately slow work — not a true strike but misconduct); hunger strike; sympathetic strike (to support other workers); lightning / wild-cat strike (sudden, no notice).

Lock-out — the employer’s mirror weapon

A lock-out (s.2(l) ID Act / s.2(u) IR Code) is the employer’s closing of the place of employment, or suspension of work, or refusal to employ, to pressure workers. Strike and lock-out are indeed “two sides of a coin” — the same weapon in opposite hands.

When are they illegal — the prohibitions (the marks live here)

Under the IR Code s.62, no strike or lock-out is allowed in any industrial establishment unless:

14 days’ notice is given (the strike must begin within 14 days of the notice and before the date specified, the notice given within 60 days before striking); and
it is not during the pendency of, and a cooling-off after, dispute proceedings — i.e. prohibited during conciliation and 7 days after, during Tribunal/National Tribunal proceedings and 60 days after, and during arbitration and 60 days after.

A strike or lock-out that breaks these rules is illegal (s.63). (Under the old Act the 14-day-notice rule applied only to public utility services; the IR Code extends it to all establishments.)

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — strike during conciliation in a public utility

Facts. In a public-utility service the workmen strike while conciliation is pending, pleading the employer provoked them.

Rule. s.62 IR Code — a strike during the pendency of conciliation (and 7 days after) is prohibited; s.63 makes such a strike illegal. Provocation is not a statutory defence to illegality.

Apply. The strike began during conciliation, so it is illegal regardless of provocation; provocation may mitigate consequences but does not legalise it.

Conclusion. The strike is illegal; the workmen lose the protection and pay a lawful strike would carry.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the funeral walk-out

Facts. Workers, after reporting for duty, leave without permission to attend an ex-employee’s funeral. The employer calls it an illegal strike.

Rule. A “strike” needs a concerted cessation of work in combination to press a demand (s.2(zk)). Mere unauthorised absence, without a common demand against the employer, may be misconduct but is not necessarily a strike.

Apply. Leaving for a funeral is a concerted absence but not aimed at pressuring the employer over employment terms; it lacks the demand element.

Conclusion. It is better treated as unauthorised absence/misconduct than as a strike; the employer’s “illegal strike” label is questionable.

flowchart TD
    Q{"Is the strike/lock-out LEGAL?"}:::root
    Q --> A["14 days' notice given?"]:::leaf
    A --> B["Not during conciliation (+7 days) /<br/>tribunal or arbitration (+60 days)?"]:::leaf
    B --> Y["LEGAL strike/lock-out"]:::good
    Q --> N["Breach of s.62 = ILLEGAL (s.63)"]:::bad
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef good fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#000;
    classDef bad fill:#FFEBEE,stroke:#B71C1C,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Buckingham & Carnatic Co. Ltd v Workers (1953) — a stay-in/tool-down strike is a “strike”; a concerted refusal to work satisfies the definition.
Standard Vacuum Refining Co. v Their Workmen (1960) — go-slow is serious misconduct, not a legitimate strike.
Syndicate Bank v K. Umesh Nayak (1994) — workers on strike (legal or illegal) are not automatically entitled to wages for the strike period; legality decides.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Labour Law I topics