By: Mereddy Divya MBLA- 08

A lockout is a work stoppage in which an employer prevents employees from working. It is declared by employers to put pressure on their workers. This is different from a strike, in which employees refuse to work. Thus, a lockout is employers weapon while a strike is raised on part of employees. According to Industrial Disputes Act 1947, lockout means the 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.

A lockout may happen for several reasons. When only part of a trade union votes to strike, the purpose of a lockout is to put pressure on a union by reducing the number of members who are able to work.

For example, if a group of the workers strike so that the work of the rest of the workers becomes impossible or less productive, the employer may declare a lockout until the workers end the strike.

Section 2(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines Lock-out to mean: The temporary closing of employment or the suspension of work, or the refusal by an employer to continue to employ any number of persons employed by him. A delineation of the nature of this weapon of industrial warfare requires description of: the acts which constitute it; the party who uses it; the party against whom it is directed; the motive which prompts resort to it.

Temporary suspension of work for want of raw materials was not a lock-out. Lock-out that involves an element of "malice or ill-will" is unacceptable. Lock-out is an instrument of economic coercion and so long as the management is acting with a view to achieve this objective by putting economic pressure on its workmen it can hardly be said that they are activated by "malice" or "ill-will." The lock-out is the corresponding weapon in the armoury of the employer. If an employer shuts down his place of business as a means of reprisal or as an instrument of coercion or, as a mode of exerting pressure on the employees or, generally speaking, when his act is that may be called an act of belligerency there would be a lock-out.

An employer can lockout its employees without pay by giving three days notice once a bargaining period commences, or immediately, on notice, in response to the start of union industrial action. The latter is the usual approach as it catches employees by surprise and hits home in their back pocket. Most employees can afford one days lost pay per fortnight for a short period, but very few can survive a two to four week lockout, particularly if they have no capacity to prepare for it and no overtime is offered upon their return for wage catch up.

The lockout demonstrates a willingness to injure employees and their families to achieve an industrial gain.

In the similar circumstances the lockout has been prohibited in the public utility service. Section 22 (2) of the Act provides that no employer carrying on any public utility service shall lock out any of his workmen: 1.Without giving them notice of lockout as hereinafter provided, within six weeks before locking out; or 2. Within 14 days of giving notice; or 3. Before the expiry of the day of lockout specified in any such notice as aforesaid; or 4. During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings. It makes clear that the employer has to comply with the same conditions before he declares lockout in his industrial establishment which the workmen are required to comply with before they go on strike. The conditions for both the parties are same.

In any Industrial endeavour co-operation of labour and capital is quite essential for its success, although they have interests contrary to each other. They have different strategies and weapons to ventilate their grievances and safeguard their interests. These democratic weapons often used by them are strikes and lock-outs. Just as strike is a weapon available to employees for enforcing their Industrial demands, a lockout is a weapon available to the employer to persuade by a coercive process to see his point of view and to accept his demands. In the struggle between capital and labour, as the weapon of strike is available to labour and is often used by it, so is the weapon of lock-out available to the employer and can be used by him.

Any workman, who commences, continues or otherwise acts in furtherance of, a strike which is illegal under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to fifty rupees, or with both. Any employer, who commences, continues, or otherwise acts in furtherance of a lock-out which is illegal under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

No employer carrying on any Public Utility service can lockout any of his workman : (i) Without giving to them notice of lockout provided within 6 weeks before locking out. (ii) Within 14 days of giving such notice. (iii) Before expiry of the date of lockout specified in any such notice. (iv) During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer and 7 days after the conclusion of such proceedings.

No person employed in a Public Utility Service can go on strike without giving to the employer notice of strike; (a) Within 6 weeks before striking. (b) Within 14 days of giving such notice. (c) Before the expiry of the date of strike specified in such notice. (d) During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer and 7 days after the conclusion of such proceedings.

While Tata Motors has decided to move its Nano factory out of Singur after violent protests by farmers, this isn't the first time that there has been a standoff between industry and farmers unwilling to surrender land. Here are four other large industrial projects in India that have recently been wracked by protests 1 .In August, the Supreme Court gave South Korean steel firm POSCO the use of large swathes of forestland in Orissa for a $12-billion plant that protesting farmers said would displace thousands of people. The protests delayed the start of construction on the plant, which could be India's single biggest foreign investment to date. 2 .In the same month, the Supreme Court allowed Vedanta Resources to mine bauxite in hills considered sacred by tribal people in Orissa. The mining would feed an alumina refinery, part of an $800-million project that has been widely opposed. Environmentalists say the open-cast mine will wreck the rich biodiversity of the remote hills and disrupt key water sources vital for farming.

3 .Goa, famous for its beaches and tourist industry, in January dropped plans to build special economic zones for industry after protests from political and environmental groups. 4 .West Bengal last year aborted a plan for a special economic zone for a chemicals complex in Nandigram after fierce protests. At least 35 villagers were killed in clashes between locals and communist party workers and the state government put all SEZs on hold in the state.