hi all
I hv some doubt about following:
Under ID act 1947 can we lock out one part of the factory or not.
for example : we have four sections like , 1) assembly 2) welding 3) machining & 4) pAINT sHOP. and IF WE WANT TO LOCK OUT ONLY machining, can we do that or not.
Pl help me out.
regards
Hoods
From India, New Delhi
I hv some doubt about following:
Under ID act 1947 can we lock out one part of the factory or not.
for example : we have four sections like , 1) assembly 2) welding 3) machining & 4) pAINT sHOP. and IF WE WANT TO LOCK OUT ONLY machining, can we do that or not.
Pl help me out.
regards
Hoods
From India, New Delhi
Hi,
I beg to differ. Sometimes wrong informations posted on cite may cause losses to organisations if acted upon and also to the person who carries the belief that infoemation provided on cite is perfect and expert opinion.
i earnestly request to all members not to pl. treat the opinion given by members as last word and get a second opinion from experts of the field.
I am writing this because many times i have observed, opinions/informations are posted which are contrary to settled legal position.
having respect to all who have expressed legal opinion on this topic,
let me make the position clear.
Lock out is the antithesis of strike. it is a weapon in the hands of management to persuade by coercive process, the employee to see the employers point of view.when workers resort to strike then management often use this weapon . it is not like that u declare lock out in one portion of the plant . lock out is a temporay closure of business place to press the workers to make them accept employers view.
it is different from lay off and closure.before declaring lock out management has to act very cautiously because if this weapon used without considering all aspects it may backfire on management .
it is lay off which can be declared in a section or department of industrial establishment and NOT LOCK OUT.
u are free to contact me for any further clarification.
regds
anil kaushik
mob;09829133699
From India, Delhi
181I beg to differ. Sometimes wrong informations posted on cite may cause losses to organisations if acted upon and also to the person who carries the belief that infoemation provided on cite is perfect and expert opinion.
i earnestly request to all members not to pl. treat the opinion given by members as last word and get a second opinion from experts of the field.
I am writing this because many times i have observed, opinions/informations are posted which are contrary to settled legal position.
having respect to all who have expressed legal opinion on this topic,
let me make the position clear.
Lock out is the antithesis of strike. it is a weapon in the hands of management to persuade by coercive process, the employee to see the employers point of view.when workers resort to strike then management often use this weapon . it is not like that u declare lock out in one portion of the plant . lock out is a temporay closure of business place to press the workers to make them accept employers view.
it is different from lay off and closure.before declaring lock out management has to act very cautiously because if this weapon used without considering all aspects it may backfire on management .
it is lay off which can be declared in a section or department of industrial establishment and NOT LOCK OUT.
u are free to contact me for any further clarification.
regds
anil kaushik
mob;09829133699
From India, Delhi
Hi,
Mr Anil Kaushik has correctly explained the provisions under the ID Act. An employer can declare a lockout as a retaliation to the workers going on strike. If the management wants to close down any department or section, the best option would be to lay off the workmen, or to retrench them by following the procedure. Under no circumstances a lockout can be declared, unless there is an ongoing strike.
Cyril
From India, Nagpur
Mr Anil Kaushik has correctly explained the provisions under the ID Act. An employer can declare a lockout as a retaliation to the workers going on strike. If the management wants to close down any department or section, the best option would be to lay off the workmen, or to retrench them by following the procedure. Under no circumstances a lockout can be declared, unless there is an ongoing strike.
Cyril
From India, Nagpur
Dear Mr. anil kaushik & Members, I am Extremly sorry I have misunderstood the Question I have understood the question regarding the Layoff I am extremly sorry for that Regards, Kalyan
From United States
From United States
Hi,Mr.Kaushik,
Under section-2 of ID act the definition is as under:
"lock-out" means the 1*[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 him;
In this definition, it is mentioned that "refusal by an employer to continue to employ any number of persons employed by him."
Does it mean, we can call some workers & stop other workers.
You are requested to pl through more light on this and if u can give reference of any decided case then it would be of great help to all of us.
regards/hoods
From India, New Delhi
Under section-2 of ID act the definition is as under:
"lock-out" means the 1*[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 him;
In this definition, it is mentioned that "refusal by an employer to continue to employ any number of persons employed by him."
Does it mean, we can call some workers & stop other workers.
You are requested to pl through more light on this and if u can give reference of any decided case then it would be of great help to all of us.
regards/hoods
From India, New Delhi
Dear HOODS,
I fully agree with answer by Mr. kaushik. Many people gaves wrong info without understand legality and consequences. Pl. ensure from experts.
If the group of workmen resorted Illegal STrike, then the employer used as weapon and lockout the factory. I exposed this situation two times in my career. The employer need to take consent/permission by Labour Commissioner in this regard. If you want to closed any section/deaprtment, apply to Labour office but ready to face its consequences.
I suggest, you inform the management to take view by expert Legal counsel before decision.
regs,
Bhushan
From India, Mumbai
I fully agree with answer by Mr. kaushik. Many people gaves wrong info without understand legality and consequences. Pl. ensure from experts.
If the group of workmen resorted Illegal STrike, then the employer used as weapon and lockout the factory. I exposed this situation two times in my career. The employer need to take consent/permission by Labour Commissioner in this regard. If you want to closed any section/deaprtment, apply to Labour office but ready to face its consequences.
I suggest, you inform the management to take view by expert Legal counsel before decision.
regs,
Bhushan
From India, Mumbai
My dear friend,
I am not an advocate. I am HR professional but labour law is my subject.
The phrase 'refusal by an employer to continue to employer any number of persons' in the definition of lock out corresponds to the phrase 'cessation of work' or 'refusal to continue to work or accept employment' occuring in the definition of this 'strike.' The phrase on which you have tried to put emphasis to draw the conclusion that you can refuse to employ 'any' number of person while continuing your rest of the business activity is infounded and is wrong interpretation. This phrase in the definition of lock out has to be red with rest of definition and also the word 'lock out' in totality these words. In Ferozdeen vs. State of Bengal 1960 I LLJ 244 (249) SC and in Mohammad Samsudin vs. Sasamusa Sugar works 1956 I LLJ, SC has emphasized that these words have to given restricted meaning. The word 'any' connotes unlimited but with the condition that it has to be inrespect of temporary to other of business place or suspension of work on his premises.
Remember that lock out exists only when it is interms of complete suspension of business activity in a particular business premises.
Illustrations :
1. The closure of palce the business for duration of three days which was in italiation to certain acts of workman was held to be lock out (express news paper case) 1962 II LLJ 227 (SC)
2. Temporary suspension of work necessitated by lack of stock was held not to constitute lock out. Anamallais Timber Trust Case 1952 II LLJ 604
3. Temporary stopage of work for lack of raw material was held not to be lock out. Praboo Pandey vs. J.K. Jute mills. 1956 I LLJ 588
4. Closure of a section of an industry carried on by employer on account of trade reasons was held not to be lock out and the closure of another section also as a result of the refusal of the workman to work in sympathy for the workman of the former section was held not to be a lock out. Industrial and General Engineering Co. vs. Their workman 1964 II LLJ 438 (Mys.)
Difference between lock out and lay off :
The concept of 'lock-out' is essentially differnt from the concept of 'lay-off' and so where closure of business amounts to a 'lock-out under S. 2(l), it would be impossible to bring it within the scope of 'lay-off' under S.2(kkk). The points of distinction between 'lay-off' and 'lock-out' may be broadly stated as follows:
1. 'Lay-off' generally occurs in continuous business, whereas 'lock-out' is closure of business for the time-being.
2. In the case of 'lay-off' owning to the reasons specified in S. 2(kk), the employer is unable to give employment to one or more workmen, whereas in the case of 'lock-out' the employer deliberately closes the business and locks out the whole body of workmen for reasons which have no relevance to the causes specified in S. 2 (kkk).
3. In the case of 'lay-off', the employer may be liable to pay compensation as provided by Ss. 25C, 25D and 25E of the Act, but liability for compensation cannot be invoked in case of 'lock-out', as the liability of the employer in cases of 'lock-out would depend upon whether the 'lock-out' was justified and legal or not.
4. The provisions applicable to the payment of 'lay-off' compensation cannot be applied to cases of 'lock-out.'
5. 'Lock-out' is resorted to by the employer as a weapon of collective bargaining and also ordinarily involves an element of malice or ill-will while 'lay-off' is actuated by the exigencies of the business.
There are some resemblance also :
1. Both 'lay-off' and 'lock-out' are temporary nature and both arise out of and exist during an emergency though the nature of emergencies in each case is different.
2. Both in 'lay-off' and 'lock-out', the relationship of employment is only suspended and is not servered.
3. 'Lay-off' resorted to in contravention of the provisions of S.25-M is illegal and punishable under S. 25Q, while 'lock-out' declared in contravention of the provisions of Ss. 10(3), 10A (4A), 22 or 23 is illegal and punishable under S. 26 of I.D. Act.
Hope the issue is clear.
regards,
Anil Kaushik
Chief Editor - Business Manager (HR) Magazine
Smriti Sadan, 28-Raghu Marg, Alwar - 301001 (Raj.) India
Mob. : 09829133699
SUBSCRIBE BUSINESS MANAGER, INDIA'S BEST HR MAGAZINE & UPDATE YOUR SELF ON HR & IR
From India, Delhi
I am not an advocate. I am HR professional but labour law is my subject.
The phrase 'refusal by an employer to continue to employer any number of persons' in the definition of lock out corresponds to the phrase 'cessation of work' or 'refusal to continue to work or accept employment' occuring in the definition of this 'strike.' The phrase on which you have tried to put emphasis to draw the conclusion that you can refuse to employ 'any' number of person while continuing your rest of the business activity is infounded and is wrong interpretation. This phrase in the definition of lock out has to be red with rest of definition and also the word 'lock out' in totality these words. In Ferozdeen vs. State of Bengal 1960 I LLJ 244 (249) SC and in Mohammad Samsudin vs. Sasamusa Sugar works 1956 I LLJ, SC has emphasized that these words have to given restricted meaning. The word 'any' connotes unlimited but with the condition that it has to be inrespect of temporary to other of business place or suspension of work on his premises.
Remember that lock out exists only when it is interms of complete suspension of business activity in a particular business premises.
Illustrations :
1. The closure of palce the business for duration of three days which was in italiation to certain acts of workman was held to be lock out (express news paper case) 1962 II LLJ 227 (SC)
2. Temporary suspension of work necessitated by lack of stock was held not to constitute lock out. Anamallais Timber Trust Case 1952 II LLJ 604
3. Temporary stopage of work for lack of raw material was held not to be lock out. Praboo Pandey vs. J.K. Jute mills. 1956 I LLJ 588
4. Closure of a section of an industry carried on by employer on account of trade reasons was held not to be lock out and the closure of another section also as a result of the refusal of the workman to work in sympathy for the workman of the former section was held not to be a lock out. Industrial and General Engineering Co. vs. Their workman 1964 II LLJ 438 (Mys.)
Difference between lock out and lay off :
The concept of 'lock-out' is essentially differnt from the concept of 'lay-off' and so where closure of business amounts to a 'lock-out under S. 2(l), it would be impossible to bring it within the scope of 'lay-off' under S.2(kkk). The points of distinction between 'lay-off' and 'lock-out' may be broadly stated as follows:
1. 'Lay-off' generally occurs in continuous business, whereas 'lock-out' is closure of business for the time-being.
2. In the case of 'lay-off' owning to the reasons specified in S. 2(kk), the employer is unable to give employment to one or more workmen, whereas in the case of 'lock-out' the employer deliberately closes the business and locks out the whole body of workmen for reasons which have no relevance to the causes specified in S. 2 (kkk).
3. In the case of 'lay-off', the employer may be liable to pay compensation as provided by Ss. 25C, 25D and 25E of the Act, but liability for compensation cannot be invoked in case of 'lock-out', as the liability of the employer in cases of 'lock-out would depend upon whether the 'lock-out' was justified and legal or not.
4. The provisions applicable to the payment of 'lay-off' compensation cannot be applied to cases of 'lock-out.'
5. 'Lock-out' is resorted to by the employer as a weapon of collective bargaining and also ordinarily involves an element of malice or ill-will while 'lay-off' is actuated by the exigencies of the business.
There are some resemblance also :
1. Both 'lay-off' and 'lock-out' are temporary nature and both arise out of and exist during an emergency though the nature of emergencies in each case is different.
2. Both in 'lay-off' and 'lock-out', the relationship of employment is only suspended and is not servered.
3. 'Lay-off' resorted to in contravention of the provisions of S.25-M is illegal and punishable under S. 25Q, while 'lock-out' declared in contravention of the provisions of Ss. 10(3), 10A (4A), 22 or 23 is illegal and punishable under S. 26 of I.D. Act.
Hope the issue is clear.
regards,
Anil Kaushik
Chief Editor - Business Manager (HR) Magazine
Smriti Sadan, 28-Raghu Marg, Alwar - 301001 (Raj.) India
Mob. : 09829133699
SUBSCRIBE BUSINESS MANAGER, INDIA'S BEST HR MAGAZINE & UPDATE YOUR SELF ON HR & IR
From India, Delhi
Dear Mr.Kaushik.
I would like to thank you for providing me with the information on the subject. I found the information both interesting and informative.
Again, I appreciate your effort and help.
Thank u vry much
rgds/hoods
PS: Pl let me know the procedure of subscribing ur magazine.
From India, New Delhi
I would like to thank you for providing me with the information on the subject. I found the information both interesting and informative.
Again, I appreciate your effort and help.
Thank u vry much
rgds/hoods
PS: Pl let me know the procedure of subscribing ur magazine.
From India, New Delhi
Dear Hoods,
for subscription of Business Manager Magazine, u can go into thread of "business manager magazine"and download the subs. order form, which is to be filled up and send back to us alongwith the subs. amount.
regds
anil kaushik
From India, Delhi
for subscription of Business Manager Magazine, u can go into thread of "business manager magazine"and download the subs. order form, which is to be filled up and send back to us alongwith the subs. amount.
regds
anil kaushik
From India, Delhi
Dear Mr.Anil Kaushik,
The above information was very helpful to our organisation. We have a case in the Madras High Court and we have challenged by way of a Writ with regard to LOCKOUT. We found the judgements quoted by you very useful. Though we are not able to get the judgement of Mohammad Samsuddin vs. Sasa Musa Sugar. Can you please help us getting the citation of the judgement .
Thanking you,
Regards
Dinesh
Director
Pradeep Stainless India Pvt Ltd.
Chennai
From India, Madras
The above information was very helpful to our organisation. We have a case in the Madras High Court and we have challenged by way of a Writ with regard to LOCKOUT. We found the judgements quoted by you very useful. Though we are not able to get the judgement of Mohammad Samsuddin vs. Sasa Musa Sugar. Can you please help us getting the citation of the judgement .
Thanking you,
Regards
Dinesh
Director
Pradeep Stainless India Pvt Ltd.
Chennai
From India, Madras
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Industrial Disputes Amendment Act 2010.doc
Industrial Disputes Act 1947.pdf