HAL EMPLOYEES UNION versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 238 · Decided: 01-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HAL EMPLOYEES UNION 
v. 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANR. 
MAY 1, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947/U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
Ss. JO( I)( c ), 22/4-K, 6-S-Strike-Lock-out~laim for wages during the 
C period of lock out-Held, lock-out being both legal and justified, workmen 
are not entitled to payment of wages for the pen·od during which the lock-out 
continued. 
D 
E 
F 
Syndicate Bank and Anr. v. K. Umesh Nayak, [1994) 5 SCC 572 
followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4041 of 
1985. 
Frain the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.84 of the Industrial 
Tribunal,-11 U.P., in Adj. Case No. 77 of 1983 (I.T.II. LKO). 
AK. Goel for the Appellants. 
S. Muralidhar for the Respondents . 
• 
The following Order of the Court· was delivered : 
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 
G of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the State Act which is equivalent 
to Section lO(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Act. 
The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record and ap-
preciating the diverse contentions raised by the counsel on either side, 
recorded, as a fact, the finding that the lock-out declared by the respondent 
H w.e.f. 4/5th June, 1978 to 18th June, 1978 was both just and lawful; hence 
238 
.. 
HAL EMPLOYEES UNION. v. PRESIDING OFFICER 
239 
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. 
A 
B 
c 
It prohibits strikes and says that no person employed in public utility 
service shall go no strike in breach of contract as enumerated in clauses 
(a) to (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 D 
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 is declared, to such authority as may be specified 
E 
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 F 
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: G 
whether they are entitled to the payment of wages for the period of 
lock-out? 
The controversy as regards illegal strike and payment of \Vages for 
that period was considered by this Court in Syndicate Bank and Am: v. K 
Umesh Nayak, (1994] 5 SCC 572 by a Constitution Bench. It was held that H 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
"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 lega

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.