Strike

What is Strike

A strike refers to the collective and concerted cessation of work by employees with the objective of securing economic, social, or workplace-related demands. It is one of the most important instruments available to workers for expressing grievances and negotiating with employers. Through collective action, workers seek to balance the inequality of bargaining power that often exists between labour and management. Strikes have historically played a significant role in labour movements across the world and are regarded as a key component of industrial democracy.

The significance of strike action lies in its ability to provide workers with an effective means of collective bargaining. Without the possibility of collective action, workers may be left with limited mechanisms to influence workplace conditions, wages, benefits, and employment security.

Strike under Indian Legislation

The statutory definition of strike was originally contained in section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which defined a strike as a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in an industry acting in combination or a concerted refusal to continue work or accept employment. The Act regulated strikes through specific provisions. Section 22 imposed restrictions on strikes in public utility services by requiring prior notice, while section 23 prohibited strikes during the pendency of conciliation and adjudicatory proceedings. Section 24 further distinguished between legal and illegal strikes by prescribing the circumstances in which industrial action would be considered unlawful.

Definition of Strike under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020

The contemporary framework is contained in the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which retains substantially the same definition of strike under section 2(zk) and introduces a more structured regulatory regime. Section 62 requires workers to provide prior notice before commencing a strike and prohibits strikes within fourteen days of such notice, before the date specified in the notice, during conciliation proceedings, and for prescribed periods following their conclusion.

Definition of Lock-out under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020

Section 2(u) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 defines a lock-out as the temporary closing of a place of employment, suspension of work, or refusal by an employer to continue employing workers. A lock-out functions as the employer's counterpart to a strike and serves as a mechanism through which employers exert pressure during industrial disputes. Although strikes and lock-outs operate in opposite directions, both constitute recognised forms of industrial action within labour law.

Chapter VIII of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020: Strikes and Lock-outs

The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 devotes an entire chapter to the regulation of strikes and lock-outs. Chapter VIII seeks to balance workers' collective bargaining rights with industrial peace and uninterrupted industrial production by prescribing procedural requirements and restrictions governing industrial action. The Code reflects a legislative attempt to encourage dispute resolution and minimise disruptions arising from industrial conflicts .Unlike the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which primarily imposed notice requirements upon public utility services, the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 extends similar procedural requirements to all industrial establishments, thereby significantly expanding the regulation of strike action.

Section 62 – Prohibition of Strikes and Lock-outs

Section 62 prescribes the conditions governing lawful strikes and lock-outs. The provision requires workers to provide notice of a strike within sixty days preceding the proposed strike and prohibits strikes within fourteen days of such notice, before the date specified in the notice, during conciliation proceedings and specified adjudicatory proceedings, and during the operation of settlements and awards relating to the dispute. The section seeks to encourage dispute resolution and minimize disruptions to industrial production.

Section 63 – Illegal Strikes and Lock-outs

Section 63 distinguishes legal industrial action from illegal industrial action by providing that strikes and lock-outs commenced or continued in contravention of section 62 shall be illegal. The provision demonstrates that the right to strike in India is not absolute but is a statutorily regulated right subject to procedural compliance.

Section 64 – Prohibition of Financial Aid to Illegal Strikes and Lock-outs

Section 64 prohibits any person from knowingly expending or applying money in direct support of an illegal strike or illegal lock-out. The provision seeks to discourage unlawful industrial action and reinforce compliance with statutory procedures governing industrial disputes.

Strike under the Industrial Relations (Central) Rules

The statutory framework governing strikes under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 is supplemented by the Industrial Relations (Central) Rules, which prescribe the procedural requirements for issuing notices and communicating industrial action. Rules 23 to 26 establish a structured mechanism for serving notices, reporting industrial action to the appropriate authorities, and ensuring compliance with statutory safeguards before a strike or lock-out is commenced. These Rules aim to facilitate conciliation, promote transparency, and minimise avoidable industrial disputes.

Rule 23 – Procedure for Giving Notice

Rule 23 lays down the procedure for giving notice under section 62 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. It governs the manner in which notices relating to strikes and lock-outs are served and clarifies the computation of the statutory notice period. The Rule ensures that adequate notice is provided before industrial action is undertaken, thereby allowing employers, workers, and conciliation authorities sufficient opportunity to negotiate and resolve disputes amicably.

Rule 24 – Report of Notice

Rule 24 requires notices relating to strikes and lock-outs to be communicated to the prescribed labour authorities in the prescribed manner. This reporting requirement enables the appropriate government and conciliation authorities to monitor industrial disputes, initiate conciliation proceedings where necessary, and promote the peaceful settlement of disputes before industrial action escalates.

Rule 25 – Notice of Strike

Rule 25 specifically governs the procedure for issuing notices of strike under section 62(1) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. A notice of strike must be issued in Form XI and signed by the Secretary of the registered Trade Union or, where no registered Trade Union exists, by five elected representatives of the workers. The Rule further requires copies of the notice to be forwarded to the Conciliation Officer, the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), and the Ministry of Labour and Employment. These procedural requirements ensure that the proposed strike is formally communicated to all relevant stakeholders and provide an opportunity for conciliation before industrial action commences.

Rule 26 – Notice of Lock-out

Although Rule 26 primarily governs notices of lock-out issued by employers, it forms part of the common procedural framework regulating industrial action under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. The Rule prescribes the procedure for issuing notices of lock-out in Form XII and complements the provisions governing notices of strike, thereby ensuring procedural parity and promoting industrial peace through advance notice and transparency.

Statutory Protection under the Trade Unions Act, 1926

The Trade Unions Act, 1926 supplements this framework by granting registered trade unions specific statutory immunities in the course of trade disputes. Section 17 provides immunity from criminal conspiracy in respect of agreements entered into for furthering the legitimate objectives of a trade dispute, while section 18 grants immunity from certain civil proceedings arising out of acts committed in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. These provisions facilitate collective labour action by protecting trade unions from specified legal liabilities associated with industrial disputes.

2.2 Strike under International Instruments

The International Labour Organization (ILO) considers the right to strike as closely connected to the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining. Although no ILO Convention expressly mentions the right to strike, the ILO's supervisory bodies have consistently interpreted freedom of association as including the right of workers to engage in strike action. Janice Bellace notes that over time the ILO's supervisory mechanisms have treated strike action as an indispensable component of freedom of association and collective bargaining despite the absence of explicit textual recognition in Convention No. 87.

ILO Convention No. 87 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948

ILO Convention No. 87 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise (1948) guarantees workers and employers the right to establish and join organisations of their own choosing without prior authorisation. While the Convention does not explicitly refer to strikes, the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) and the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) have repeatedly recognised strike action as one of the essential means through which workers defend their economic and social interests. Bernard Gernigon, Alberto Odero and Horacio Guido explain that the jurisprudence of these supervisory bodies has developed a comprehensive framework governing strike action, including permissible restrictions in essential services and protections against reprisals for participating in lawful industrial action.

Although Convention No. 87 is one of the ILO's fundamental conventions, India has not ratified it. The Government of India has historically expressed concerns regarding the Convention's implications for public servants, particularly members of the civil services, police forces, and government employees whose service conditions are governed by domestic legislation. Consequently, while India is a member of the International Labour Organization and is expected to respect the fundamental principles of freedom of association, the Convention does not create binding treaty obligations for India through ratification.

ILO Convention No. 98 concerning the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, 1949

ILO Convention No. 98 concerning the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining (1949) protects workers against anti-union discrimination and promotes voluntary collective bargaining. Effective collective bargaining is often linked to the ability of workers to engage in industrial action when negotiations fail. Jeffrey Vogt similarly argues that the right to strike has evolved through decades of interpretative practice within the ILO and now constitutes one of the principal mechanisms through which workers safeguard their economic and social interests.

Although Convention No. 98 seeks to protect workers against anti-union discrimination and promote voluntary collective bargaining, India has not ratified the Convention. The Government of India has historically justified non-ratification on the ground that domestic service rules governing certain categories of public servants and government employees may not fully conform to the obligations contemplated under the Convention. Nevertheless, as a member of the International Labour Organization, India remains expected to respect the fundamental principles underlying collective bargaining and freedom of association.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966

Article 8(1)(d) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) expressly recognises the right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with domestic law. India acceded to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on 10 April 1979 and is therefore legally bound under international law to recognise the rights contained therein, including the right to strike under Article 8(1)(d). However, the Covenant itself permits the exercise of the right to strike to be regulated by domestic law. Accordingly, the recognition of strike action in India continues to be subject to statutory restrictions contained in labour legislation and judicial interpretation.

International labour standards generally regard strike action as an essential labour right and a legitimate mechanism for protecting workers' interests, subject only to reasonable restrictions necessary for public welfare and essential services. India's international commitments therefore present a mixed picture. While India has accepted obligations concerning collective bargaining and has acceded to the ICESCR, its non-ratification of Convention No. 87 partly explains the cautious and restrictive approach that Indian courts have adopted towards recognising strike action as a broader constitutional right.

2.3 Strike in Judicial Interpretation

Indian courts have repeatedly examined the constitutional and statutory dimensions of strike action, revealing a tension between protecting collective labour action and maintaining public order and industrial stability. Although the Constitution of India does not expressly recognise a right to strike, scholars have argued that strike action may be derived from broader constitutional guarantees. Article 19(1)(c) protects the freedom of association, while Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) protect freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, all of which are closely connected with collective labour protest. Furthermore, Article 21 and the Directive Principles of State Policy emphasise human dignity, social justice, and the protection of labour interests, thereby providing a normative basis for recognising strike action as an important instrument of collective bargaining and industrial democracy.

Judicial Evolution of the Right to Strike in India

Right to Form Associations versus Right to Strike | All India Bank Employees' Association v National Industrial Tribunal.

One of the earliest judicial pronouncements on the right to strike was All India Bank Employees' Association v National Industrial Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that while Article 19(1)(c) guarantees the right to form associations, it does not automatically extend constitutional protection to every activity undertaken by such associations, including strike action. The Court distinguished between the right to form a union and the right to strike, holding that the latter is not a fundamental right. This judgment established the principle that the right to form a union and the right to strike are distinct legal concepts and continues to influence judicial approaches towards strike rights in India.

Constitutional Protection of Collective Protest | Kameshwar Prasad v State of Bihar.

The relationship between labour protest and constitutional freedoms was considered in Kameshwar Prasad v State of Bihar. The Supreme Court recognised that peaceful demonstrations may fall within the protection of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. However, the Court stopped short of recognising a fundamental right to strike. Although strike action itself was not constitutionally protected, the judgment laid an important foundation for linking collective labour protest with the freedoms of speech and assembly. The decision remains significant in discussions concerning the expressive dimension of labour movements.

Judicial Recognition of Collective Bargaining | B.R. Singh v Union of India.

A comparatively labour-friendly judicial approach emerged in B.R. Singh v Union of India. The Supreme Court acknowledged the practical importance of collective bargaining and recognised that workers often require collective action to balance the stronger bargaining power of employers. The Court emphasised that collective bargaining occupies a central place within industrial relations and serves as an important mechanism for protecting workers' interests. The judgment reflected judicial recognition of the role of collective bargaining in maintaining equitable industrial relations.

Labour-Oriented Approach towards Collective Action | Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd v Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha .

In Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd v Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, the Supreme Court recognised collective bargaining as an integral component of industrial relations and acknowledged that strike action often functions as an important economic weapon available to labour. Although the Court did not elevate strike action to the status of a fundamental right, it adopted a comparatively labour-oriented approach and recognised the practical necessity of collective action in balancing inequalities of bargaining power.

Restrictions on Strike Rights in Essential Services | Delhi Police Non-Gazetted Karamchari Sangh v Union of India

The Supreme Court held that police personnel cannot claim an unrestricted right to strike because maintenance of public order and security constitutes an essential state function. The decision demonstrates that the permissibility of strike action may vary according to the nature of employment and broader considerations of public interest.

Freedom of Association versus Right to Strike | Radhey Shyam Sharma v Post Master General

The decision reiterated that the constitutional freedom to form associations does not automatically encompass a right to strike. The Court reinforced the distinction between associational rights and industrial action and contributed to the restrictive judicial understanding of strike rights in India.

Restriction of Strike Rights in Public Employment | T.K. Rangarajan v Government of Tamil Nadu.

The restrictive judicial approach towards strike action was reaffirmed in T.K. Rangarajan v Government of Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court held that government employees possess neither a fundamental nor a statutory right to strike. The Court prioritised the continuity of public services and administrative efficiency over claims relating to collective labour action.

The decision also highlights an important distinction between public-sector and private-sector strikes. Industrial action by government employees is often subject to stricter regulation because of its potential impact on essential public services and administrative functioning. In contrast, private-sector strikes have traditionally enjoyed comparatively greater flexibility, subject to compliance with labour legislation and procedural requirements. While the judgment remains the leading authority governing strike rights of public servants in India, it has also attracted criticism for its limited engagement with international labour standards and comparative constitutional developments concerning labour rights.

While judicial decisions have significantly shaped the legal understanding of strike action, the contemporary regulation of strikes is primarily governed by statutory law, particularly the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. The decision represents the high-water mark of judicial restraint in relation to strike rights and firmly establishes that, in India, the right to strike remains primarily a statutory entitlement rather than a constitutionally guaranteed freedom.

Right of Advocates to Strike

Professional Ethics and Prohibition of Advocates' Strikes | Harish Uppal v Union of India

The issue of whether advocates possess a right to strike was considered in Harish Uppal v Union of India. The Supreme Court held that lawyers have no right to strike or boycott courts and observed that advocates, as officers of the court, owe duties not only to their clients but also to the administration of justice. Abstention from judicial work adversely affects litigants and impedes access to justice. Although symbolic protest in rare and exceptional circumstances may be permissible, suspension of court work was held to be impermissible. The judgment therefore represents one of the strongest judicial rejections of professional strikes in India.

Distinction between Strike and Lock-out

Basis	Strike	Lock-out
Initiated by	Employees	Employer
Nature	Collective cessation of work	Temporary closure or suspension of work
Objective	Secure workers' demands	Exert pressure during industrial disputes
Statutory Basis	Section 2(zk), Industrial Relations Code, 2020	Section 2(u), Industrial Relations Code, 2020

Although strikes and lock-outs operate in opposite directions, both constitute recognised forms of industrial action and function as economic weapons within the process of collective bargaining. While a strike represents collective pressure exerted by employees, a lock-out serves as the employer's corresponding mechanism during industrial disputes.

Contemporary Position under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020

The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 represents one of the most significant reforms in India's labour law framework. The Code consolidates and replaces the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 along with other legislation relating to industrial relations.

The Code continues to recognise strikes as a lawful form of industrial action but introduces a more structured regulatory framework governing their exercise. Section 62 requires workers to provide prior notice before commencing a strike. Employees are prohibited from going on strike within fourteen days of giving notice, before the expiry of the date specified in the notice, during the pendency of conciliation proceedings, and for specified periods following the conclusion of such proceedings.

The Code also reinforces the distinction between legal and illegal strikes. A legal strike is one undertaken in accordance with statutory requirements, including prescribed notice periods and restrictions during conciliation or adjudication proceedings. Conversely, a strike may be considered illegal where workers fail to comply with these procedural conditions. The distinction reflects the legislature's attempt to balance workers' collective bargaining rights with the objective of maintaining industrial peace and uninterrupted industrial production.

Industrial action may also be distinguished according to its objectives. Labour strikes are generally directed towards employment-related concerns such as wages, working conditions, benefits, or job security. Political strikes, by contrast, seek to influence governmental policies or broader public issues that extend beyond the immediate employer-employee relationship. This distinction has often influenced judicial and legislative approaches towards the regulation of industrial action.

Supporters argue that these procedural safeguards promote industrial harmony and encourage dispute resolution before work stoppages occur. Critics, however, contend that the expanded notice requirements make lawful strikes more difficult to organise and may weaken workers' bargaining power.

The Industrial Relations Code therefore reflects an ongoing policy debate between promoting industrial stability and preserving workers' ability to engage in effective collective action.

International Experience

6.1 South Africa

South Africa provides one of the strongest constitutional protections for strike action. Section 23(2)(c) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 expressly guarantees every worker the right to strike. The constitutional recognition of strike action reflects South Africa's commitment to workplace democracy, collective bargaining, and labour rights in the post-apartheid era. By elevating strike action to the status of a constitutional right, South Africa treats collective labour action as an essential mechanism through which workers can protect their economic and social interests.

6.2 United States

In the United States, the right to strike is primarily protected through statutory labour law rather than through an express constitutional guarantee. The National Labor Relations Act, 1935 recognises the rights of employees to organise, bargain collectively, and engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection. American labour law developed in response to concerns regarding the unequal bargaining power between employers and employees, and strike action continues to be regarded as an important instrument of collective bargaining and worker representation

6.3 Canada

Canada has witnessed significant constitutional developments regarding strike rights. In Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the right to strike is an indispensable component of meaningful collective bargaining protected under the freedom of association guarantee contained in section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court recognised that workers require the ability to withdraw their labour in order to negotiate effectively with employers and to maintain a meaningful system of collective bargaining. This judgment significantly strengthened constitutional protection for labour rights in Canada.

6.4 Comparative Constitutional Lessons

Comparative constitutional experiences demonstrate a growing international trend towards recognising strike action as an integral aspect of collective bargaining and freedom of association. While South Africa and Canada provide constitutional protection for strike action, the United States primarily safeguards such rights through statutory mechanisms. Despite these differences, all three jurisdictions recognise that collective labour action plays an important role in balancing bargaining power between employers and workers. These comparative experiences provide valuable guidance for constitutional interpretation and labour policy reform in India.

Research Engaging with the Right to Strike

The right to strike has generated substantial academic debate in India and internationally. Contemporary scholarship focuses on constitutional interpretation, collective bargaining, labour law reform, trade union autonomy, and compliance with international labour standards.

1. Ashish Goel and Piyush Karn, in their article 'Tracing the Right to Strike under the Indian Constitution', undertake a doctrinal and comparative constitutional analysis of strike rights in India. The study seeks to determine whether the right to strike can be derived from broader constitutional guarantees such as freedom of association, human dignity, and social justice. The authors examine judicial decisions of the Supreme Court of India and compare the Indian position with constitutional developments in South Africa, Canada, and the United States. The article finds that Indian courts have generally adopted a restrictive interpretation by treating strike action primarily as a statutory right rather than an integral component of collective labour rights. The authors argue that this approach insufficiently recognises the realities of collective bargaining and recommend a more expansive constitutional understanding that places greater emphasis on labour dignity, industrial democracy, and workers' freedom of collective action.
2. Janice Bellace, in 'The ILO and the Right to Strike', examines the historical development of the right to strike within the International Labour Organization through an analysis of ILO conventions, supervisory body reports, and interpretative practices. The study investigates the evolution of the ILO's understanding of freedom of association and its relationship with collective bargaining rights. The article finds that although Convention No. 87 does not expressly mention a right to strike, the ILO's Committee of Experts and other supervisory mechanisms have consistently interpreted freedom of association as encompassing strike action. Bellace concludes that the right to strike has become an indispensable element of international labour law and remains essential for effective collective bargaining and the protection of workers' interests.
3. Aishwarya Bhuta, in 'Imbalancing Act: India's Industrial Relations Code, 2020', critically examines the implications of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 through a doctrinal analysis of its substantive provisions and policy objectives. The study evaluates changes relating to notice requirements, dispute resolution mechanisms, recognition of trade unions, and regulation of industrial action. The author argues that the Code seeks to prioritise industrial stability and ease of doing business but, in doing so, may substantially restrict workers' ability to organise and engage in effective collective action. The article finds that the expanded procedural requirements for strikes may alter the balance of industrial relations in favour of employers and weaken the bargaining capacity of workers. The author therefore recommends a more rights-oriented labour framework that preserves meaningful opportunities for collective bargaining and industrial democracy.
4. Abhishek Sharma Padmanabhan and Sapna Sainath, in their article' 'A Critical Analysis of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 in Promoting Industrial Harmony and Employee Participation, undertake a doctrinal examination of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 to assess whether the new labour framework successfully reconciles industrial harmony with workers' rights and participatory mechanisms. The study analyses the provisions of the Code relating to collective bargaining, dispute resolution, trade union functioning, and strike regulation and evaluates their implications for employer-employee relations. The authors find that while the Code seeks to simplify labour regulation and promote industrial stability, certain procedural restrictions may inadvertently reduce opportunities for meaningful employee participation and effective collective action. The study concludes that labour reforms should strive to maintain industrial peace without undermining workers' collective rights and recommends preserving adequate institutional avenues for employee participation and collective bargaining.
5. Hruday Injallikar examines the judicial treatment of strike rights in India, particularly in the context of public employment and essential services, through a doctrinal analysis of judicial decisions and labour law principles. The study investigates how Indian courts have balanced workers' collective rights against concerns relating to public welfare, administrative continuity, and the uninterrupted delivery of essential services. By analysing leading decisions, particularly those concerning government employees, the author finds that courts have generally adopted a restrictive approach towards strike action and have frequently prioritised public interest over collective labour rights. The article highlights the continuing tension between industrial peace and workers' freedom of collective action and argues that an excessively restrictive approach may weaken collective bargaining and trade union autonomy. The study therefore calls for a more balanced judicial framework that accommodates both public welfare considerations and the legitimate interests of workers in pursuing collective action..

Contemporary policy discourse therefore remains divided between those who view strike action as a constitutionally protected labour right and those who regard it primarily as a statutory right subject to extensive governmental regulation.

Challenges

Several challenges continue to affect the recognition and regulation of strike action:

• Lack of clarity regarding constitutional status.
• Restrictions on strikes in essential services.
• Balancing labour rights with public welfare.
• Economic losses arising from industrial disputes.
• Judicial inconsistency in interpreting strike-related rights.
• Concerns regarding disruption of public administration and essential services.

Way Forward

Future reforms may focus on developing a more coherent legal framework for strike action in India.

Possible measures include:

• Strengthening collective bargaining institutions.
• Clarifying the constitutional status of strike rights.
• Harmonising domestic labour laws with international standards.
• Ensuring adequate protection for workers while safeguarding essential public services.
• Promoting alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in industrial conflicts.

Related Terms

• Trade Union
• Collective Bargaining
• Industrial Dispute
• Lockout
• Demonstration
• Freedom of Association
• Labour Rights
• Industrial Action

References

Contributors & review status

Curated / edited bynot yet recorded

Peer reviewpending

Project reviewpending

Expert reviewpending

Page created 2026-08-21  ·  Last updated 2026-08-28