Skip to main content

Provisions regarding strikes and lock-outs

Strike generally means stoppage of work by workmen to pressurize the employer to fulfill their demands or for any other cause. Similarly, lock-out is a weapon in the hands of the employer for compelling the workmen to accept the terms and conditions. 

But strike and lock-out cause a lot of loss to the industry and causes a stoppage of production. Thus, to know the strike and lockout beforehand Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lays down certain provisions regarding it.

Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lays down the provision regarding the prohibition of strikes and lock-outs. This section is applicable to the lock-outs and strikes in industries carrying the public utility service. Lock-outs and strikes under this section are not totally prohibited but there are certain requirements to fulfill. 

Section 22(1) says that no person who is employed in public utility service shall go on strike in breach of contract and must follow the below requirements:

  1. Without giving notice to the employer within six weeks before striking;

  2. Within the 14 days of giving such above notice;

  3. Within the expiry of the date of strike specified in such notice;

  4. During the pendency and after seven days after the conclusion of proceedings before any conciliation officer.   

It is important to note that these provisions do not prohibit or restrict the workmen from going on a strike but these are certain requirements that they need to mandatorily fulfill before going on a strike. These provisions are only applicable to a public service utility and not to any other utility service. When there is a lock-out in existence then notice of strike is not necessary.

Section 22(2) says that no employer shall lock out any of his workmen who is carrying any public utility service-

  1. Without giving notice to the employer within six weeks before striking;

  2. Within the 14 days of giving such above notice;

  3. Within the expiry of the date of strike specified in such notice;

  4. During the pendency and after seven days after the conclusion of proceedings before any conciliation officer.

According to Section 22(3) the notice under subsection (1) and (2) can be dispensed in certain cases-

  1. When there is already a strike in existence then no such notice of lock-out is necessary for the public service utility concerned.

  2. When there is already a lock-out in existence then no such notice of strike is necessary for the public service utility concerned.

Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides the general prohibition of strikes and lock-outs. This section applies to both public utility as well as non-public utility establishments.

According to this section, a strike in breach of contract by workmen and lock-out in case of the employer is prohibited in the following cases-

  1.  During the pendency and after seven days after the conclusion of proceedings before any conciliation officer.

  2. During the pendency and after two months of proceedings before a Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal.

  3. During the pendency and after two months of arbitration proceedings before an arbitrator.

  4. During any period where a settlement or award is in operation.


 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more