Strike and Lockout: Understanding Their Legal Aspects in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

When workers collectively down tools to press their demands, or when an employer shuts the gates to force employees back to the negotiating table, the consequences – legal, financial, and social – can be far-reaching. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not take away the right to strike or lock out. Instead, it draws clear boundaries around both, ensuring that these powerful industrial weapons are used through due process rather than as tools of unchecked coercion. Understanding those boundaries is essential for anyone studying labour law in India.

What the law means by “strike” and “lockout” 🔗

Before examining when a strike or lockout is legal or illegal, it helps to be clear on what the Act actually means by each term.

Defining a strike 🔗

Section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines a strike as “a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination, or a concerted 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.” Three elements are critical here: there must be a cessation or refusal of work, it must involve multiple workers acting together under a common understanding, and those workers must be employed in an industry as defined by the Act. If workers individually stop working for personal reasons, that does not amount to a strike in the legal sense. The collective, coordinated nature of the action is what defines it.

Defining a lockout 🔗

A lockout is the employer’s counterpart. Section 2(l) of the Act defines it as the temporary closing of a place of employment, or the suspension of work, or the refusal by an employer to continue to employ any number of persons employed by him. Unlike a permanent closure or shutdown of a business, a lockout is a temporary measure. Crucially, courts have held that for an action to qualify as a lockout, it must be motivated by coercion – the employer’s intent must be to pressure workers into accepting certain terms or conditions. As the Supreme Court observed in Management of Kairbetta v. Rajamanickam (1960), just as a strike is a weapon available to employees for enforcing industrial demands, a lockout is a weapon for the employer to persuade workers by a coercive process.

Is the right to strike a fundamental right? 🔗

This is one of the most commonly tested points in labour law. The answer is no. While Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution guarantees the right to form associations and trade unions, it does not extend to an unconditional right to strike. The Supreme Court settled this in Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1962), ruling that the right to strike is a legal right – not a fundamental one – and is therefore subject to statutory restrictions. Similarly, in T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2003), the Court held that government employees have no legal or moral right to go on strike. The Industrial Disputes Act gives workers the right to strike, but only if they follow the procedure it prescribes.

Conditions for a legal strike or lockout 🔗

The Act lays down two sets of procedural conditions – one specific to public utility services (Section 22), and one applicable to all industrial establishments (Section 23).

Section 22: conditions for public utility services 🔗

Public utility services under the Act include sectors like water supply, electricity, railways, public conservancy, sanitation, hospitals, and communication. Because disruption in these sectors affects the general public directly, the Act imposes stricter notice requirements on both workers and employers before they can strike or lock out.

Under Section 22(1), no person employed in a public utility service can go on strike in breach of contract:

• Without giving the employer notice of strike within six weeks before striking;
• Within 14 days of giving such notice;
• Before the expiry of the date of strike specified in the notice; or
• During the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer, and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings.

Employers in public utility services face the same mirror obligations under Section 22(2) before they can declare a lockout. These requirements do not prohibit strikes or lockouts outright – they only require that both parties follow due process before acting. One important exception: if a strike is already in progress, the employer does not need to give a notice of lockout but must send an intimation to the appropriate government authority.

Section 23: general prohibition for all establishments 🔗

Beyond public utility services, Section 23 imposes a broader prohibition on strikes and lockouts in any industrial establishment during the following periods:

• During conciliation proceedings before a Board, and seven days after their conclusion;
• During proceedings before a Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal, and two months after their conclusion;
• During arbitration proceedings under Section 10A, and two months after their conclusion (where a notification has been issued); or
• While a settlement or award relating to the dispute is in force.

The rationale behind Section 23 is straightforward: once a dispute has been referred to a formal dispute resolution mechanism, both parties must allow that process to work. Striking or locking out while adjudication is underway undermines the entire system of industrial dispute resolution that the Act is built around.

When does a strike or lockout become illegal? 🔗

Section 24 of the Act provides that a strike or lockout is illegal if it is commenced or declared in contravention of Sections 22 or 23, or if it is continued in defiance of an order made under Section 10(3) or Section 10A(4A) of the Act. In plain terms, any industrial action that skips mandatory notice periods, disregards cooling-off windows, or continues after the government has referred the dispute to adjudication is illegal.

However, the Act carves out an important exception in Section 24(3): a lockout declared as a direct consequence of an illegal strike is not itself deemed illegal. The same logic applies in reverse – a strike called in retaliation to an illegal lockout is also not deemed illegal. This provision recognises that one party should not be penalised for reacting to the other party’s unlawful action.

Consequences of an illegal strike or lockout 🔗

The Act attaches serious consequences to violations, both for workers and employers.

Penalties under Section 26 🔗

Under Section 26 of the Act, any workman who commences, continues, or otherwise acts in furtherance of an illegal strike is punishable with imprisonment up to one month, or a fine up to ₹50, or both. For employers, the penalty for an illegal lockout is the same term of imprisonment but with a higher monetary fine of up to ₹1,000.

Penalties under Sections 27 and 28 🔗

The Act goes further. Section 27 makes it punishable to instigate or incite others to take part in an illegal strike or lockout. Section 28 targets those who provide financial aid to an illegal strike or lockout, with the knowledge that it is illegal. These provisions ensure that the legal accountability does not rest only with the direct participants – those who organise, fund, or encourage illegal industrial action are equally exposed.

Loss of wages and disciplinary action 🔗

Beyond criminal penalties, the Supreme Court in India General Navigation and Railway Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (AIR 1960 SC 219) held that workers participating in an illegal strike are not entitled to wages for the period of the strike, and can be subject to discharge or dismissal. Employers, on the other hand, who declare an illegal lockout face civil liability as well, and courts have the power to issue orders requiring cessation of the illegal lockout.

Strikes and lockouts in public utility services: a stricter lens 🔗

The Act treats public utility services with special caution. The Madras High Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Petroleum Employee’s Union (2003) confirmed that parties to a contract were bound by ongoing conciliation proceedings, and that a strike conducted while such proceedings were active was illegal under Section 24 read with Section 22(1)(d). This reinforces that in sectors where a work stoppage directly affects the public – power, water, transport, healthcare – the procedural bar is higher and compliance is non-negotiable.

It is worth noting that the notice requirement under Section 22 does not mean a strike or lockout in public utility services is prohibited. It only means the parties must give advance notice and observe the prescribed waiting periods before acting. The law preserves the right while preventing sudden, surprise stoppages that could harm the public.

Justified vs. unjustified strikes: a distinction beyond legality 🔗

Indian courts have recognised that a strike can be technically illegal (due to procedural non-compliance) yet still justified in substance – for instance, where workers are striking over genuine grievances such as unpaid wages or unsafe working conditions. Conversely, a strike that follows all procedural requirements can still be unjustified if it involves violence, destruction of property, or wholly unreasonable demands. This distinction matters in practice because courts and tribunals take the justifiability of the action into account when deciding issues like wage entitlement and disciplinary action, even when the strike’s legality is not in question. The Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak (1994) held that a strike is not illegal merely because its purpose is disputed; illegality is determined by procedural compliance, not by the demands alone.

Balancing rights with responsibilities 🔗

The Industrial Disputes Act walks a careful line. It does not treat strikes and lockouts as inherently harmful or as purely legitimate. Instead, it treats them as powerful but regulated tools – preserving the right to use them while ensuring that neither side can weaponise them recklessly against the other or against the public interest. The procedural requirements of notice, cooling-off periods, and blackout windows during adjudication are not mere technicalities. They are the Act’s mechanism for keeping industrial conflict within manageable bounds, allowing both parties the space to negotiate and use formal dispute resolution before resorting to direct action.

As India’s labour market evolves and more workers enter the informal and gig economy, there are growing questions about whether the framework of the 1947 Act – designed primarily for the organised industrial sector – is adequate for today’s realities. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which consolidates the Industrial Disputes Act along with two other labour laws, attempts some modernisation, but the core principles governing strikes and lockouts remain substantively unchanged.

What do you think? Given that the right to strike is a legal right but not a fundamental one in India, should the procedural requirements under Sections 22 and 23 be seen as reasonable safeguards or as disproportionate restrictions on workers’ collective bargaining power? And with the growth of the gig economy and informal work, how should the law evolve to address industrial action by workers who fall outside the traditional definition of “workmen” under the Industrial Disputes Act?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/17112/1/the_industrial_disputes_act.pdf
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1950513/
3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/need-know-strikes-lockouts/
4. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-12602-strike-and-lock-out-under-industrial-dispute-act-1947.html
5. https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-strike-under-industrial-dispute-act-1947/
6. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l455-Strikes-and-Lockouts.html
7. https://legalonus.com/strikes-and-lock-outs-under-industrial-disputes-act-1947/
8. https://www.taxbuddy.com/blog/section-24-industrial-dispute-act
9. https://legalvidhiya.com/penalties-for-illegal-strikes-and-lockouts/
10. https://lawcorner.in/penalties-under-the-industrial-disputes-act-1947/
11. https://lawbhoomi.com/strike-and-lockout/