LEGALITY OF STRIKE :
The legality of strike is determined with reference to the legal provisions enumerated in the Act and the purpose for which the strike was declared is not relevant in directing the legality. Section 10(3), 10A(4A), 22 and 23 of the Act deals with strike. Sections 22 and 23 impose restrictions on the commencement of strike while Sections 10(3) and 10A(4A) prohibit its continuance.
The justifiability of strike has no direct relation to the question of its legality and illegality. The justification of strike as held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Matchwell Electricals of India v. Chief Commissioner, (1962) 2 LLJ 289, is entirely unrelated to its legality or illegality. The justification of strikes has to be viewed from the stand point of fairness and reasonableness of demands made by workmen and not merely from stand point of their exhausting all other legitimate means open to them for getting their demands fulfilled.
As regards the wages to the workers strike period are concerned, the Supreme Court in Charakulam Tea Estate v. Their Workmen, AIR 1969 SC 998 held that in case of strike which is legal and justified, the workmen will be entitled to full wages for the strike period. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Crompton GreavesLtd. case 1978 Lab 1C 1379 (SC).
The Supreme Court in Statesman Ltd. v. Their Workman, AIR 1976 SC 758 held that if the strike is illegal orunjustified, strikers will no be entitled to the wages for the strike period unless considerate circumstances constraint a different cause. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Madura Coats Ltd. v. The Inspector of Factories, Madurai, AIR 1981 SC 340.
The Supreme Court has also considered the situation if the strike is followed by lockout and vice versa, and both are unjustified, in India Marine Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workman, AIR 1963 SC 528. In this case, the Court evolved the doctrine of “apportionment of blame” to solve the problem. According to this doctrine, when the workmen and the management are equally to be blamed, the Court normally awards half of the wages. This doctrine was followed by the Supreme Court in several cases. Thus, the examination of the above cases reveal that when the blame for situation is apportioned roughly half and half between the management and workmen, the workmen are given half of the wages for the period involved.
A division bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India v. TS Kelawala, (1990) 2 Lab 1C 39 held thatthe workers are not entitled to wages for the strike period. The Court observed that “the legality of strike does not always exempt the employees from the deduction of their salaries for the period of strike”. The Court, further observed, “whether the strike is legal or illegal, the workers are liable to lose wages does not either make the strike illegal as a weapon or deprive the workers of it”.