Lockout resulting from illegal and unjustified strike held justified; workers not entitled to back wages.

The Petitioner management declared a lockout from 07.12.2010 to 08.03.2012 following a series of agitational programs, "go-slow" tactics, and a violent incident on 04.12.2010 where workers allegedly barred entries to the factory

A tripartite settlement was reached on 21.02.2012, leading to the lifting of the lockout, with the issue of wages for the lockout period referred to adjudication

In 2017, the appropriate government referred the dispute to the Labour Court

The Labour Court, by Award dated 03.05.2018, held that while the workers' strike was illegal/unjustified, the management’s lockout was also unjustified because they did not proactively seek a legal resolution or dialogue

The Labour Court apportioned 50% wages to the workers

1. Whether the Management was justified in declaring a lockout from 07.12.2010 to 08.03.2012 in response to the Union's agitational activities

2. Whether the workmen were entitled to wages/relief for the said lockout period

3. Whether the reference was barred by delay and laches, given it was raised five years after the lockout was lifted

The Court applied Section 24(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 regarding illegal strikes and lockouts

It relied on the principle of "No Work No Pay" as established in tripartite settlements

Regarding the apportionment of blame in cases of unjustified strikes and lockouts, the Court cited The Statesman Limited v. Their Workmen (1976) 2 SCC 223

It further applied the rule from HAL Employees Union v. Presiding Officer (1994) 4 SCC 223, stating wages during a strike/lockout are payable only if the action is both legal and justified

On the issue of stale claims, the Court followed Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648, which holds that belated service-related claims for arrears should be rejected or restricted

The High Court found that the respondent Union had a history of violating prior settlements and engaging in violent agitational programs, including a physical blockade on 04.12.2010

The Court critiqued the Labour Court's reasoning, noting that once a strike is found to be illegal and violent, a consequent lockout for the protection of property and personnel is naturally justified

The Court observed that the Union admitted to not following the 2008 settlement terms

It held that the management had a reasonable apprehension of threat to life and property, making the lockout a necessary consequence of the workers' unjustified conduct

Furthermore, the Court noted the Labor Court erred by not addressing the management's plea that the reference was stale, as the claim for back wages was raised after a five-year delay, violating the principles of limitation in service claims

The Court held that the lockout was a direct consequence of an illegal and unjustified strike, and therefore, the management could not be blamed

Consequently, the direction to pay 50% back wages for the period of 07.12.2010 to 08.03.2012 was quashed. The Court also held the claim to be belated and hit by delay and laches