Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
HAL EMPLOYEES UNION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT01/05/1995
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises from the award of
the Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow made in Adj. Case No.
7708/83 on 28.4.1984. The admitted facts are that the
respondent declared lock-out from 4/5th June, 1978 and wages
to the workmen were deducted for that period. An industrial
dispute was raised which came to be referred under Section
4-k of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the state Act
which is equivalent to Section 10(1) (c) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Act. The Tribunal after
considering the entire evidence on record and appreciating
the diverse contentions raised by the counsel on either
side, recorded, as a fact, the finding that the lock out
declared by the respondent w.e.f. 4/5th June, 1978 to 18th
June, 1978 was both just and lawful, hence the question of
any relief to the workmen does not arise.
It is contended by Shri A.k. Goel, learned counsel for
the appellant, that on the own showing of the respondents it
is not a case of total strike by the rival unions; there was
production to the extent of 15% which would show that the
strike which ended on May 31, 1978 and the lock-out declared
on 4/5th June, 1978 was not due to continuing strike and
that, therefore, the management was not justified in
reaching the conclusion without following the procedure
prescribed under Section 6-s(2) of the state Act which is
equivalent to Section 22 (3) of the Central Act, to declare
lock-out. With a view to appreciate the contention, it is
necessary to extract the relevant provisions of the Act.
Section 22 falls in Chapter V which deals with strikes
and lock-outs. It prohibits strikes and says that no person
employed in public utility service shall go on strike in
breach of contract as enumerated in clauses (a) and (d) of
sub-section (1) thereof. Sub-section (2) prohibits
declaration of lock-out for the circumstances mentioned in
the clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (2). Sub-section (3)
postulates that "the notice of lock-out or strike under this
section shall not be necessary where there is already in
existence a strike or, as the case may be, lock-out in the
public utility service, but the employer shall send
intimation of such lock-out or strike on the day on which it
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
is declared, to such authority as may be specified by the
appropriate Government either generally or for a particular
area or for a particular class of public utility services."
Section 24 declares what are illegal strikes or illegal
lock-outs. It says that "a lock-out declared in consequence
of an illegal strike or a strike declared in consequence of
an illegal lock out shall not be deemed to be illegal". It
is seen that the strike continued until 4/5th June, 1978 and
the lock-out was continued upto 18th June, 1978. In view of
the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there was an
illegal strike in consequence of which the lock-out was
declared by the respondent-Management, it cannot be declared
that the lock-out is illegal. On that finding, the question
arises: whether they are entitled to the payment of wages
for the period of lock-out?
The controversy as regard illegal strike and payment of
wages for that period was considered by this Court in
Syndicate Bank and Anr. vs. K. Umesh Nayak [(1994) 5 SCC
572] by a Constitution Bench. It was held that "no-work no-
pay" is the principle applicable to public utility services;
wages during strike period would be payable only if the
strike is both legal and justified but not payable if strike
is legal but not justified or justified but illegal. The
strike may be of different forms like go-slow, work to rule,
refusal to work overtime, irritation strike etc. we are
bound by the ratio of the said Constitution Bench judgment
which applies to declaration of the lock-out which is the
consequence of illegal strike organized by the workmen. The
lock-out is both legal and justified in the present case. As
a result, the workmen are not entitled to the payment of
wages for the period during which the lock-out continued.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.