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.