Stay-in, sit-down, pen-down, or tool-down strike
In all such cases, the workmen after taking their seats refuse to do work. Even when asked to leave the premises, they refuse to do so. All such acts on the part of the workmen acting in combination, amount to a strike. Since such strikes are directed against the employer, they are also called primary strikes. In the case of Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. All India Punjab National Bank Employees’ Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160,
Go-slow does not amount to strike, but it is a serious case of misconduct.
In the case of Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Jai Singh, (1961) II LLJ 644 (647) SC, the Supreme Court explained the legality of go-slow in the following words: “Go-slow which is a picturesque description of deliberate delaying of production by workmen
Some workers may resort to fast on or near the place of work or residence of the employer. If it is peaceful and does not result in cessation of work, it will not constitute a strike. But if due to such an act, even those present for work, could not be given work, it will amount to strike (Pepariach Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Their Workmen).
LEGALITY OF STRIKE:
- The Supreme Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Majdoor Sabha, AIR 1980 SC 1896 held that the justifiability of a strike is purely a question of fact.
- Therefore, if the strike was resorted to by the workers in support of their reasonable, fair, and bona fide demands in a peaceful manner, then the strike will be justified
- Where it was resorted to by using violence or acts of damage or for any hidden purpose, then the strike will be unjustified.
- The Supreme Court in Statesman Ltd. v. Their Workman, AIR 1976 SC 758 held that if the strike is illegal or unjustified, strikers will not be entitled to wages for the strike period unless considerate circumstances constrain a different cause. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Madura Coats Ltd. v. The Inspector of Factories, Madurai, AIR 1981 SC 340.
Rakesh ParmarHR Ignite