HAL EMPLOYEES UNIONversusTHE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANR.

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.

          Syndicate Bank and Anr. v. K. Umesh Nayak, [1994) 5 SCC 572
    followed.
D
            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).
E
            AK. Goel for the Appellants.

            S. Muralidhar for the Respondents .
                      •
            The following Order of the Court· was delivered :
F
           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 .                        A

           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,           B
     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.                                               c
           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 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 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
B
    lock-out which is the consequence of iUegal strike organised 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.

C          The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

    R.P.                                                       Appeal dismissed.