Chapter: 2.4.14 Instigation of an Illegal Strikein the M.R.T.U.P.U.L.P.

Instigation of an Illegal Strike 

• In the case,

Engineering and Metal Workers Union
V
Sah. and Singhi and another
1985 CLR 378.

• the Unfair Labour Practice being under item 1 and 5 of Sch. III of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 it was seen that, mere participation in an illegal strike is not a coercive act within the meaning of item 5 of Sch. III.
• The Court observed that, 'If the abstention is held to amount to' an apparently illegal strike then interim orders can be issued as well as final cease and desist orders passed in respect of the trade union and the employees who have advised or who have actively supported or who' have instigated this strike.
• No orders can be passed against the employees who cannot be brought within the -purview of the expression employed in item 1.
• In other words the expression will clearly rule out a mere participation.
• In many instances of Industrial unrest which results in abstention from work there are always a certain number of employees who do not desire to go against the majority out- of fear or shame or similar considerations.
• These cannot be regarded active supporters of the strike.
• A workman on strike cannot be considered to be actively supporting the strike by mere non resumption of work.'
• 'To turn to item 5 a mere participation in a strike without peripheral activity which could be regarded as coercive whether of the character of; the activities indicated subsequently in item 5 or not, in my opinion, be coercive.'