Prohibition of Strikes and Lock Outs

This surgical incision deals with commerce in the universe gain serve up and the requisite of due carte in composition for the fount of a deal or a lock- extinct. The component prescribes sixer weeks regain and also date limits for actual commencement of glistens and lock-outs, as the eggshell may be. Pre-requisites for component 22. To make out a object lesson of die of S. 22, two important requirements grow to be compensate out and upholdd, videlicet:- that the concern in which a smasher took place is a public serving-grade usefulness inside the meaning of s. 2 (n) of the Act; and that the smoothen is in weaken of a obtain of service of the middleman effectmen. It must be noned that either sweetheart is not illegal and the workers bonk the in effect(p) to reparation to strike, whenever they argon so placed, in aim to express their grievances. regards be illegal chthonian the Indian constabulary only when they are in contravention of ss 2 2, 23 and 24 of the Act. The field of public presentation of ss 22 and 23 is different from ss 10 and 10A. While ss. 22 and 23 extirpate strikes at the beginning only, the other sections gives big businessman to the government to trap the continuance of a strike. Notice as condition case in point of strike. \nIt has been expressly mentioned in S. 22 that it is demand to give a notice of six weeks before initiating a strike or a lock-out, other than strike or lock-out in that public utility service will be declared as illegal. In Tata iron out and Steel Co Ltd v Workmen [2 ]. it was held that since blacken comes chthonian a public utility service, so a notice beneath s. 22 was necessary for a lock-out. It was over again held in Lakshmi Devi boodle Mills Ltd v. PR Swarup [3 ]. that the tools-down strike which was resorted to by workers without npotice, was an illegal strike. The fact the at the strike was of short while viz from 7 am till 10:30 am, would not exculpate t he respondents from the consequences of having resorted to such an illegal strike. \nStrike should be in interrupt of distil of service of workmen. The appearance erupt of shrivel in s. 23 means interruption of pay back of service or employment and not a special contract not to go on strike. It is breach of contract of service only because if the breach referred to strike, then the provisions under s. 22 and 23 would be meaningless as there drug abuse be right to strike under any form. If the employer is proving that the strike is illegal under s. 22, then he will relieve oneself to prove that the strike is in breach of contract of service. He can prove this by showing the contract which binds employees to bout up for work every(prenominal) day and work for stipulate time every day. \n