Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In Management of Kairbetta Estate case (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:

"8. Stated broadly lay-off generally occurs in a continuing business, whereas a lock-out is the closure of the business. In the case of a lay-off, owing to the reasons specified in s. 2(kkk) the employer is unable to give employment to one or more workmen. In the case of a lock-out the employer closes the business and locks out the whole body of workmen for reasons which have no relevance to causes specified in s. 2(kkk). Thus the nature of the two concepts is entirely different and so are their consequences. In the case of a lay- off the employer may be liable to pay compensation as provided by s. 25(C), (D) and (E) of the Act; but this liability cannot be invoked in the case of a lock-out. The liability of the employer in cases of lock-out would depend upon whether the lock-out was justified and legal or not; but whatever the liability, the provisions applicable to the payment of lay-off compensation cannot be applied to the cases of lock-out. Therefore, we hold that the lock-out in the present case was not a lay-off, and as such the respondents are not entitled to claim any law-off compensation from the appellant. Incidentally we would like to add that the circumstances of this case clearly show that the lock-out was fully justified. The appellant's Manager had been violently attacked and the other members of the staff working in the lower division were threatened by the respondents. In such a case if the appellant locked out his workmen no grievance can be made against its conduct by the respondents.

In Indian Marine Service Private Ltd. case (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:

"14. It seems to us that the attitude of the company was a reasonable one and that it even proposed to the union and through it to its workmen that work should go on, that the dispute should be taken before the Conciliation Officer for conciliation and that in the meanwhile they were prepared to grant some interim relief to the workmen. But instead of accepting this reasonable offer the union spurned it contemptuously and for coercing the company encouraged its members to strike work on November 13, 1958. It is true that the strike was intended to be a token one. But the object of that strike being to circumvent settlement in an amicable manner, even though the company was ready for such settlement, we have no doubt that strike was unjustified. It is in the light of this finding that the lock-out has to be judged. In our opinion, while the strike was unjustifiable the lock-out when it was ordered on November 13, 1958, was justified. It seems to us, however, that though the lock-out was justified at its commencement its continuance for 53 days was wholly unreasonable and, therefore, unjustified. In a case where a strike is unjustified and is followed by a lock-out which has, because of its long duration, become unjustified it would not be a proper course for an industrial tribunal to direct the payment of the whole of the wages for the period of the lock- out. We would like to make it clear that in a case where the strike is unjustified and the lock-out is justified the workmen would not be entitled to any wages at all. Similarly where the strike is justified and the lock-out is unjustified the workmen would be entitled to the entire wages for the period of strike and lock-out. Where, however, a strike is unjustified and is followed by a lock-out which becomes unjustified a case for apportionment of blame arises. In our opinion in the case before us the blame for the situation which resulted after the strike and the lock-out can be apportioned roughly half and half between the company and its workers. In the circumstances we, therefore, direct that the workmen should get half their wages from November 14, 1958, to January 3, 1959, (both days inclusive)."

19. From the reading of the above judgments, the following position emerges:

(a) The liability of employer to pay wages in case of lock-out would depend upon whether the lock-out was legal and justified.

(b) If the lock-out is illegal, the employer would be liable to pay full wages to the workman.

(c) If the lock-out is legal but is unjustified, the workman is entitled to receive full wages and other benefits.

(d) The dispute regarding payment of wages during the lock-out need to be decided by the Tribunal by applying mind to the question of apportionment of the blame on the two parties and to its effect on the amount of wages to be awarded to the workman.

24. Whether in the case in hand the wages are „payable‟. The answer is „No‟. The word „payable‟ has been defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary to mean „of a sum of money a bill etc. that is to be paid falling due, able to be paid‟.

25. The wages become payable during the period of lock-out, if the lock- out is held to be illegal and unjustified. The same has to be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal. In the present case even though reference was made to determine whether the workmen are entitled to wages for the lock-out period with effect from June 14, 1996, such an adjudication could not take place. There is nothing on record that workers had pursued the claim for wages during the lock-out period in any forum thereafter. The lock-out was between the period 1996-97. Much time had elapsed thereafter. Now the claim would not be maintainable. So it is not a case where the wages have become payable to the workman.