Industrial Disputes Act 1947: Strikes, Lockouts & Worker Rights

{/* Internal link suggestions: /practice-areas/labour-law, /book-appointment, /blog/employee-termination-rights-india, /blog/gratuity-law-india, /blog/minimum-wages-india, /blog/epf-employee-provident-fund-india */}

Introduction

The **Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act)** is the cornerstone of India's labour law framework governing the resolution of industrial disputes, the conditions under which strikes and lockouts are permissible, and the protections afforded to workers against retrenchment, layoff, and closure. Enacted in the wake of independence, the Act seeks to balance the interests of employers and workers by providing a structured mechanism for the settlement of disputes and by imposing conditions on the exercise of economic weapons (strikes and lockouts) by both sides.

The ID Act applies to every **industrial establishment** as defined under the Act and covers **workmen** (now "workers" under the new labour codes) engaged in manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work. It establishes a comprehensive framework of **conciliation**, **adjudication**, and **arbitration** for the resolution of industrial disputes, and provides protections against arbitrary retrenchment, layoff, and closure of industrial establishments.

While the **Industrial Relations Code, 2020** was enacted by Parliament as part of the four labour codes to replace the ID Act, its implementation has been delayed as most states have not yet framed the rules required for its operation. As of the date of this article, the **Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 continues to be the operative law** in most states.

This article provides a comprehensive educational overview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -- its key provisions, the definition of industrial dispute, strikes and lockouts, retrenchment, layoff, closure, unfair labour practices, the adjudicatory machinery, and landmark judicial pronouncements.

---

Key Definitions

Industrial Dispute -- Section 2(k)

**Section 2(k)** defines "industrial dispute" as:

> *"Any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person."*

The Supreme Court in **Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate (1958) SCR 1156** held that the dispute must be a **real and substantial** dispute, not a speculative or academic one. The dispute must relate to **employment, non-employment, terms of employment, or conditions of labour**.

An **individual dispute** (a dispute between a single workman and the employer) is not an "industrial dispute" per se, unless it is **espoused by a substantial number of workmen** or by a recognised trade union. However, the **Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982** (Section 2A) provides that a dispute relating to the **discharge, dismissal, retrenchment, or termination** of an individual workman shall be deemed an industrial dispute even if no other workman or union espoused it.

Workman -- Section 2(s)

**Section 2(s)** defines "workman" as any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work for hire or reward. However, it **excludes**:

- Persons employed in the **armed forces** or police

- Persons employed in **managerial or administrative** capacity

- Persons employed in a **supervisory capacity** drawing wages exceeding **Rs. 10,000 per month** (though this threshold has been debated and varies by notification)

Industry -- Section 2(j)

**Section 2(j)** defines "industry" broadly as:

> *"Any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture, or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen."*

The Supreme Court in **Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213** (the leading case on the definition of "industry") laid down the **triple test**:

1. There must be **systematic activity**

2. Organised by **cooperation** between employer and employee

3. For the production and/or distribution of **goods and services** calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes

Sovereign functions of the State (such as defence, legislation, and judiciary) are excluded, but hospitals, educational institutions, clubs, and co-operative societies may qualify as "industry."

---

Dispute Resolution Machinery

The ID Act establishes a multi-tiered machinery for the resolution of industrial disputes:

1. Conciliation -- Sections 4 and 12

**Conciliation** is the first stage of dispute resolution. The **Conciliation Officer** (appointed by the Government) attempts to bring about a settlement between the employer and the workmen.

- **Section 12(1)**: When an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the Conciliation Officer may investigate and promote settlement

- **Section 12(2)**: If a settlement is arrived at in the course of conciliation, it is called a **settlement** and is binding on both parties

- **Section 12(4)**: If no settlement is reached, the Conciliation Officer sends a **failure report** to the appropriate Government

- **Section 12(6)**: The appropriate Government may then refer the dispute for adjudication

2. Board of Conciliation -- Section 5

The appropriate Government may constitute a **Board of Conciliation** for promoting settlement of industrial disputes. The Board consists of a chairman (an independent person) and members representing employers and workmen.

3. Court of Inquiry -- Section 6

The Government may constitute a **Court of Inquiry** to investigate any matter relevant to an industrial dispute. The Court of Inquiry submits its report to the Government, which may publish it. The report is not binding but provides a factual basis for further action.

4. Labour Court -- Section 7

**Labour Courts** are constituted for the adjudication of certain categories of disputes, including:

- Propriety or legality of an **order of discharge, dismissal, or termination**

- Application and interpretation of **standing orders**

- **Illegality or otherwise of a strike or lockout**

- Withdrawal of any **customary concession or privilege**

The matters within the jurisdiction of Labour Courts are specified in the **Second Schedule** to the Act.

5. Industrial Tribunal -- Section 7A

**Industrial Tribunals** have wider jurisdiction than Labour Courts and adjudicate disputes relating to:

- **Wages**, including the period and mode of payment

- **Compensatory and other allowances**

- **Hours of work** and rest intervals

- **Leave with wages** and holidays

- **Bonus, profit sharing, provident fund, and gratuity**

- **Shift working**

- Classification by **grades**

- Rules of **discipline**

- **Rationalisation**

- **Retrenchment** and **closure**

The matters within the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals are specified in the **Second and Third Schedules** to the Act.

6. National Tribunal -- Section 7B

The Central Government may constitute a **National Tribunal** for adjudication of industrial disputes involving questions of **national importance** or disputes affecting establishments in more than one state.

---

Strikes and Lockouts -- Sections 22-25

Definition of Strike -- Section 2(q)

**Section 2(q)** defines "strike" as a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination, or a concerted refusal or a refusal under a common understanding of any number of persons who are or have been so employed to continue to work or to accept employment.

Definition of Lockout -- Section 2(l)

**Section 2(l)** defines "lockout" as the temporary closing of a place of employment, or the suspension of work, or the refusal by an employer to continue to employ any number of persons employed by them.

Section 22: Prohibition of Strikes and Lockouts in Public Utility Services

In **public utility services** (such as railways, postal services, telecommunications, water supply, electricity, hospitals, fire brigades, etc.):

- **No workman shall go on strike** unless they give notice of 14 days before striking and within 6 weeks of giving such notice (Section 22(1))

- **No employer shall declare a lockout** unless they give notice of 14 days before the lockout and within 6 weeks of giving such notice (Section 22(2))

- No strike or lockout during the **pendency of conciliation proceedings** before the Conciliation Officer and 7 days after the conclusion of such proceedings (Section 22(1)(d) and 22(2)(d))

Section 23: General Prohibition of Strikes and Lockouts

In **all establishments** (not just public utility services):

- No workman shall go on strike and no employer shall declare a lockout during the **pendency of conciliation** proceedings before a Board and 7 days after the conclusion of such proceedings (Section 23(a))

- During the **pendency of proceedings** before a Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal and 2 months after the conclusion of such proceedings (Section 23(b))

- During the **pendency of arbitration** proceedings and 2 months after the conclusion (Section 23(c))

- During any period in which a **settlement or award is in operation** in respect of the matters covered by the settlement or award (Section 23(d))

Section 24: Illegal Strikes and Lockouts

**Section 24** declares a strike or lockout to be **illegal** if:

- It is commenced or declared in contravention of Section 22 or Section 23

- It is continued after a reference has been made under Section 10, during the pendency of proceedings and two months after the conclusion

A strike or lockout is **not illegal** if it is a response to an illegal lockout or strike by the other party.

Section 25: Penalty for Illegal Strikes and Lockouts

- **Section 26**: A workman who commences, continues, or otherwise acts in furtherance of an illegal strike shall be punishable with imprisonment up to **one month** or fine up to **Rs. 50** or both

- **Section 27**: An employer who commences, continues, or otherwise acts in furtherance of an illegal lockout shall be punishable with imprisonment up to **one month** or fine up to **Rs. 1,000** or both

---

Layoff, Retrenchment, and Closure -- Sections 25A-25O

Layoff -- Sections 25A-25E

**Section 2(kkk)** defines "layoff" as the failure, refusal, or inability of an employer to give employment to a workman whose name appears on the muster rolls of the establishment and who has not been retrenched.

**Section 25C**: A laid-off workman is entitled to **compensation** equal to **50% of the total basic wages and dearness allowance** for the period of layoff (subject to conditions).

**Section 25M**: In establishments employing **100 or more workmen** (in some states 300 or more after amendment), the employer must obtain **prior permission of the appropriate Government** before laying off workmen. This is a critical protection against arbitrary layoff of workers in large establishments.

Retrenchment -- Section 25F

**Retrenchment** is defined under **Section 2(oo)** as the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, other than termination by way of punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. It **excludes** voluntary retirement, superannuation, non-renewal of contract, and termination on grounds of continued ill health.

**Section 25F** prescribes the **mandatory conditions** for a valid retrenchment:

1. **One month's notice** in writing (or pay in lieu of notice) must be given to the workman

2. The workman must have been in **continuous service for not less than one year**

3. **Retrenchment compensation** equal to **15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service** (or any part of a year exceeding 6 months) must be paid at the time of retrenchment

4. Notice of retrenchment must be served on the **appropriate Government** in the prescribed manner

**Section 25G**: The **"last in, first out"** principle -- the employer must retrench the workman who was **last employed** in that category, unless there are adequate reasons for departing from this principle (to be recorded in writing).

**Section 25H**: Where a retrenched workman offers themselves for re-employment, and the employer proposes to take on persons in the same category, **retrenched workmen shall be given preference** (last retrenched, first re-employed).

**Section 25N**: In establishments employing **100 or more workmen** (or 300 or more in certain states), the employer must obtain **prior permission of the appropriate Government** before retrenching any workman. If permission is not obtained, the retrenchment is void ab initio.

The Supreme Court in **Parry & Co. v. P.C. Pal (1970) 2 SCC 879** held that non-compliance with Section 25F renders the retrenchment void and the workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.

Closure -- Sections 25FFA-25FFF

**Section 25FFA**: An employer intending to close an establishment must serve at least **60 days' notice** on the appropriate Government, stating the reasons for the intended closure.

**Section 25FFF**: Where an establishment is closed, every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year is entitled to **retrenchment compensation** as if they had been retrenched under Section 25F.

**Section 25O**: In establishments employing **100 or more workmen**, the employer must obtain **prior permission of the appropriate Government** before closing the establishment. This is similar to the prior permission requirement for retrenchment under Section 25N.

---

Unfair Labour Practices -- Section 25T and Fifth Schedule

**Section 25T** prohibits employers and workmen from committing any **unfair labour practice** as listed in the **Fifth Schedule** to the Act.

Fifth Schedule: Examples of Unfair Labour Practices

**By Employers:**

- Interfering with, restraining, or coercing workmen in the exercise of their right to organise (Item 1)

- Dominating, interfering with, or contributing financial or other support to a trade union (Item 2)

- Establishing **employer-sponsored unions** to interfere with genuine unions (Item 3)

- Discriminating against workmen for trade union activities (Item 4)

- Discharging or dismissing workmen for participating in a **legal strike** (Item 5)

- **Victimisation** or creating conditions leading to forced resignation (Item 9)

- **Unfair transfer** of a workman to punish them for union activity (Item 10)

**By Workmen and Trade Unions:**

- Forcing workmen to join a strike through **intimidation, coercion, or threat** (Item 11)

- Staging demonstrations at the **residence** of employers or managerial personnel (Item 14)

- **Gherao** of members of the managerial or other staff (Item 15)

- Holding out threats of violence against non-striking workers (Item 16)

Section 25U: Penalty for Unfair Labour Practices

Any person who commits an unfair labour practice shall be punishable with imprisonment up to **six months** or fine up to **Rs. 1,000** or both.

---

Key Judicial Pronouncements

1. Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213

A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court laid down the **triple test** for determining whether an establishment is an "industry" under the ID Act. The Court held that the definition of "industry" is wide and includes hospitals, educational institutions, clubs, municipalities, and similar entities.

2. Workmen of Meenakshi Mills v. Meenakshi Mills (1992) 2 SCC 624

The Supreme Court held that the **right to strike is not a fundamental right** but a statutory right subject to conditions prescribed by law. The Court observed that while workers have the right to collective bargaining, strikes must be conducted within the legal framework.

3. Parry & Co. v. P.C. Pal (1970) 2 SCC 879

The Supreme Court held that retrenchment in violation of **Section 25F** (without notice, compensation, or compliance with the last-in-first-out principle) is **void ab initio**, and the workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages.

4. Hindustan Tin Works v. Employees (1979) 2 SCC 80

The Supreme Court held that where retrenchment is found to be illegal, the normal rule is **reinstatement with full back wages**. The Court may deny back wages only in exceptional circumstances (e.g., where the workman was gainfully employed elsewhere during the dispute period).

5. Excel Wear v. Union of India (1979) 1 SCC 636

The Supreme Court held that the requirement of prior government permission for closure (Section 25O) is a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g), as it serves the legitimate interest of protecting workers from arbitrary unemployment.

6. Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union (1997) 9 SCC 377

The Supreme Court held that contract labourers who perform the same work as regular employees and have been working for a substantial period are entitled to regularisation and the protections of the ID Act.

7. Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai (1976) 3 SCC 832

The Supreme Court held that the ID Act is a piece of **beneficial legislation** enacted for the protection of workers and must be interpreted in a manner that advances its objective. The Court cautioned against narrow or technical interpretation that would defeat the purpose of the Act.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an industrial dispute?

An **industrial dispute** under **Section 2(k)** of the ID Act is any dispute or difference between employers and workmen (or between employers, or between workmen) connected with the employment, non-employment, terms of employment, or conditions of labour of any person.

Is the right to strike a fundamental right in India?

No. The Supreme Court in **Workmen of Meenakshi Mills (1992)** held that the right to strike is **not a fundamental right** but a **statutory right** subject to conditions under Sections 22-24 of the ID Act. Strikes in violation of these conditions are illegal.

What is retrenchment under the ID Act?

**Retrenchment** is the termination of a workman's service by the employer for any reason other than disciplinary punishment. Under **Section 25F**, valid retrenchment requires one month's notice, retrenchment compensation (15 days' pay per year of service), and compliance with the last-in-first-out principle.

What happens if retrenchment is done without following Section 25F?

Retrenchment in violation of Section 25F is **void ab initio** (legally invalid from the beginning). The workman is entitled to **reinstatement with full back wages**, as held by the Supreme Court in **Parry & Co. v. P.C. Pal (1970)**.

What is the difference between a strike and a lockout?

A **strike** is a cessation of work by workmen acting in combination. A **lockout** is the temporary closing of a place of employment or suspension of work by the employer. Both are economic weapons -- strikes by workers and lockouts by employers.

When is a strike illegal?

A strike is illegal if it is commenced in contravention of **Section 22** (public utility services -- without 14 days' notice) or **Section 23** (all establishments -- during pendency of conciliation, adjudication, or arbitration proceedings), as per **Section 24**.

What is prior government permission for retrenchment?

Under **Section 25N**, establishments employing **100 or more workmen** must obtain **prior permission** of the appropriate Government before retrenching any workman. Retrenchment without such permission is void.

What are unfair labour practices?

Unfair labour practices are listed in the **Fifth Schedule** of the ID Act and include employer actions such as interfering with union activities, victimising workers, discriminating against union members, and worker actions such as intimidating non-striking workers or conducting gherao.

What is the role of a Conciliation Officer?

The **Conciliation Officer** (appointed by the Government) investigates and promotes settlement of industrial disputes. If settlement is reached during conciliation, it is binding on both parties. If not, the officer sends a failure report to the Government.

Is the Industrial Disputes Act still in force?

Yes. While the **Industrial Relations Code, 2020** was enacted to replace the ID Act, its implementation has been **delayed** as most states have not framed the necessary rules. As of the date of this article, the **Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 remains the operative law** in most Indian states.

---

*Disclaimer: This article is published for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, a solicitation, or an advertisement. The information provided is based on Indian laws as of the date of publication and may be subject to change through legislative amendments, judicial pronouncements, or executive notifications. The implementation status of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 may vary by state. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this article without seeking professional legal advice tailored to their specific facts and circumstances. For personalised guidance, please consult a qualified advocate.*