Whatsapp
Strikes and Lockouts under Industrial Relations Code 2020: New Notice Requirements and Restrictions
Introduction
Industrial relations in India have undergone significant transformation with the enactment of the Industrial Relations Code 2020, which introduces new restrictions and notice requirements for strikes and lockouts across all industries. This landmark legislation consolidates three major labour laws into a single framework, fundamentally altering how strikes and lockouts are regulated in Indian industries. The Code represents one of the most ambitious labour law reforms in recent decades, introducing stricter notice requirements and expanded restrictions that affect both workers and employers. Understanding these changes to strike and lockout regulations is crucial for maintaining industrial harmony while protecting the rights of all stakeholders in the employment relationship.
The regulation of strikes and lockouts has always been a delicate balancing act between protecting workers’ collective bargaining rights and ensuring industrial stability. The new Code attempts to strike this balance by imposing mandatory notice periods, prohibiting industrial action during certain proceedings, and extending restrictions beyond public utility services to all industrial establishments. These provisions mark a departure from the earlier regime under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which had more limited application [2].
Historical Context and Legislative Evolution
The regulation of strikes in India dates back to the Trade Disputes Act of 1929, which first introduced restrictions on the right to strike in public utility services. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 further developed this framework by establishing detailed procedures for industrial dispute resolution and placing conditions on when workers could legally resort to strikes. Under the old regime, restrictions on strikes without prior notice applied primarily to establishments classified as public utilities, leaving other industrial establishments with greater flexibility.
The judiciary has consistently held that the right to strike is not a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. In the landmark case of Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar [3], decided in 1962, the Supreme Court clarified that while peaceful demonstrations fall within the protections of freedom of speech and assembly under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), the right to strike itself does not enjoy constitutional protection. The Court upheld restrictions on strikes by government employees, noting that such limitations serve the larger public interest.
This principle was reinforced in T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu [4], where the Supreme Court emphatically stated that government employees have no fundamental, statutory, or moral right to resort to strikes. The Court observed that strikes as a weapon are often misused, resulting in chaos and administrative breakdown, and that the interests of society cannot be held ransom to employee demands. These judicial precedents established the foundation for legislative restrictions on industrial action, recognizing strikes as a statutory right subject to reasonable regulations rather than an absolute entitlement.
The Industrial Relations Code 2020: Consolidation and Reform
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 consolidates and repeals three central labour laws: the Trade Unions Act, 1926, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [1]. Receiving Presidential assent on September 28, 2020, the Code aims to simplify compliance, promote ease of doing business, and create a more balanced framework for employer-employee relations. Despite its enactment, the Code awaits notification for its implementation, with the Central Government retaining discretion to bring different provisions into force at different times.
The Code comprises 106 sections organized into 14 chapters, covering various aspects of industrial relations including trade union registration, dispute resolution mechanisms, standing orders, and provisions relating to strikes and lockouts. One of the most significant changes involves redefining key terms and expanding the scope of regulations to encompass all industrial establishments, not merely those classified as public utilities.
The definition of strike under the Code includes cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination, and significantly, it now encompasses concerted casual leave taken by fifty percent or more workers on a given day. This expanded definition addresses a common tactic where workers would simultaneously take casual leave to exert pressure on employers while technically not engaging in a strike. By bringing such coordinated absences within the ambit of strikes, the Code ensures that these actions are subject to the same notice requirements and restrictions.
Mandatory Notice Requirements for Strikes
One of the most substantial changes introduced by the Industrial Relations Code concerns the notice requirements for strikes. Workers planning to go on strike must now provide their employers with at least fourteen days’ advance notice before commencing any strike action [5]. This notice must specify the intended date of the strike and remain valid for a maximum period of sixty days from the date of notice. If workers wish to strike after the sixty-day validity period expires, they must issue fresh notice and wait another fourteen days.
The notice requirement serves multiple purposes within the industrial relations framework. First, it provides employers with adequate time to prepare for potential disruptions to production and services, allowing them to make alternative arrangements or take mitigating measures. Second, it creates a mandatory cooling-off period during which parties can attempt to resolve their differences through negotiation or conciliation. Third, it ensures that strikes do not occur impulsively but only after deliberate consideration and formal communication.
Under the previous regime of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, similar notice requirements existed but applied primarily to public utility services. Public utility services were defined narrowly to include railways, postal services, airports, hospitals, and other essential services where interruption would cause public hardship. The Industrial Relations Code extends these notice requirements to all industrial establishments, regardless of their classification, thereby subjecting a much broader range of employers and workers to these procedural safeguards [2].
The requirement of fourteen days’ notice represents a balance between providing workers sufficient time to organize collective action and giving employers reasonable warning. During this period, conciliation proceedings often commence, with conciliation officers appointed by the government attempting to mediate between the disputing parties. The notice period thus becomes an integral part of the dispute resolution mechanism, encouraging dialogue before resorting to direct action.
Parallel Notice Requirements for Lockouts
The Industrial Relations Code applies symmetrical notice requirements to lockouts initiated by employers. Just as workers must provide fourteen days’ notice before striking, employers must give fourteen days’ advance notice before declaring a lockout [5]. This parallel requirement ensures fairness in the regulation of industrial action, recognizing that lockouts can be as disruptive to workers as strikes are to employers.
A lockout, defined as the temporary closing of a place of employment or suspension of work by an employer, serves as management’s counterpart to a worker’s strike. Historically, employers have used lockouts to pressure workers into accepting management’s terms or to respond to threatened or actual strikes. The notice requirement prevents employers from suddenly closing establishments without warning, thereby protecting workers from unexpected loss of livelihood.
The principle of reciprocal obligations reflects a fundamental tenet of industrial relations law: both parties to the employment relationship bear responsibilities toward maintaining industrial peace. By imposing equivalent notice periods on both strikes and lockouts, the Code acknowledges that industrial harmony requires restraint and good faith from employers and workers alike.
Employers who receive notice of a strike or who issue notice of a lockout must report this fact to the appropriate government authority and the conciliation officer within five days. This reporting requirement enables government authorities to monitor industrial disputes and intervene through conciliation machinery before situations escalate. The involvement of conciliation officers at this early stage increases the likelihood of disputes being resolved through negotiation rather than through protracted strikes or lockouts.
Prohibited Periods for Industrial Action
Beyond the notice requirements, the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 establishes specific periods during which strikes and lockouts are absolutely prohibited. These prohibitions aim to protect the integrity of dispute resolution processes and prevent industrial action from undermining formal mechanisms for settling disputes.
Workers and employers are prohibited from engaging in strikes or lockouts during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and for a period of seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings [6]. Under the Industrial Relations Code 2020, these notice requirements and restrictions on strikes and lockouts ensure that parties give conciliation a genuine opportunity to succeed without the threat or actuality of industrial action. Conciliation represents a structured attempt by a neutral third party to help disputing parties reach a voluntary settlement, and this process cannot function effectively if either party can resort to strikes or lockouts while talks are ongoing.
.Similarly, strikes and lockouts are prohibited during proceedings before a Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal, or National Industrial Tribunal, and for sixty days after the conclusion of such proceedings [6]. When disputes are formally referred to adjudication, parties submit themselves to a legal process for determining their rights and obligations. Allowing strikes or lockouts during this period would undermine the authority of these tribunals and create a parallel pressure tactic alongside the legal process.
The prohibition extends to periods when an arbitration proceeding is pending before an arbitrator, and for two months after the arbitration concludes, provided the parties have agreed to arbitration under the Code. Arbitration represents a voluntary dispute resolution mechanism where parties agree to submit their differences to a neutral arbitrator whose decision binds them. Maintaining industrial peace during arbitration respects the parties’ choice to resolve disputes through this alternative forum.
These temporal restrictions on strikes and lockouts existed in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but applied primarily to public utility services and specific categories of disputes. The Industrial Relations Code 2020 significantly expands these prohibitions on strikes and lockouts to all industrial establishments, broadening the circumstances under which industrial action is illegal. This expansion reflects the legislature’s judgment that dispute resolution mechanisms deserve protection from disruptive industrial action across all sectors of the economy.
Consequences of Illegal Strikes and Lockouts
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 prescribes significant penalties for violations of its strike and lockout provisions. Workers who commence, continue, or participate in illegal strikes face punishment including imprisonment for up to one month, fines up to fifty thousand rupees, or both. Employers who declare or continue illegal lockouts face imprisonment for up to one month, fines ranging from fifty thousand to one lakh rupees, or both [7].
These penalties represent a substantial increase from those prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, where fines for illegal strikes by workers could extend only to fifty rupees, and for employers, to one thousand rupees. The enhanced penalties in the new Code reflect inflation over the decades and signal a stronger deterrent intent. The legislature clearly aims to discourage parties from bypassing legal procedures and resorting to illegal industrial action.
Beyond criminal penalties, illegal strikes and lockouts carry civil consequences. Workers participating in illegal strikes and lockouts under the Industrial Relations Code 2020 lose their entitlement to wages for the strike period and may face disciplinary action, including dismissal from service. The Supreme Court in India General Navigation and Railway Company Ltd v. Their Workmen held that when workers engage in illegal strikes and lockouts, they forfeit any claim to wages or compensation and become subject to punishment through discharge or dismissal [8].
Persons who instigate, incite, or encourage others to participate in illegal strikes or lockouts commit a separate offense punishable with imprisonment for up to six months, fines up to one thousand rupees, or both. This provision addresses the role of union leaders, political activists, or other instigators who may not directly participate in industrial action but who play a crucial role in organizing and promoting it. By making instigation a distinct offense, the Code seeks to deter external interference in employer-employee relations.
The concept of illegality in strikes and lockouts depends on compliance with the statutory framework established by the Industrial Relations Code 2020. A strike or lockout becomes illegal if commenced or declared in contravention of the notice requirements for strikes and lockouts, if continued in violation of government orders, or if initiated during prohibited periods such as conciliation or tribunal proceedings. However, a lockout declared in consequence of an illegal strike, or a strike declared in consequence of an illegal lockout, does not automatically become illegal, recognizing the reactive nature of such actions under the Code [9].
Recognition of Negotiating Unions and Collective Bargaining
The Industrial Relations Code introduces important innovations in trade union recognition and collective bargaining. The Code establishes the concept of negotiating unions and negotiating councils, providing a structured framework for employer-union interactions. Where a single trade union exists in an industrial establishment, the employer must recognize that union as the sole negotiating union if it represents workers employed in the establishment. Where multiple unions exist, a union with support from fifty-one percent or more of the workers on the muster roll gains recognition as the negotiating union [5].
This recognition threshold of fifty-one percent ensures that the negotiating union represents a clear majority of the workforce, thereby strengthening its legitimacy in collective bargaining. Where no single union achieves this threshold, the Code provides for the formation of a negotiating council. Trade unions with support from at least twenty percent of the workers receive representation in the negotiating council, with the number of seats allocated proportionate to their membership strength.
The recognition of negotiating unions and councils creates a formal structure for collective bargaining, reducing confusion about which union or unions have the authority to negotiate with management. This clarity benefits both employers and workers by establishing predictable channels for discussing wages, working conditions, and other employment terms. The negotiating union or council becomes the primary voice of workers in dealings with the employer, including in situations involving potential strikes.
The relationship between union recognition and strike regulation is significant. Recognized negotiating unions typically serve as the entities that issue strike notices on behalf of workers. Their formal status gives them greater responsibility for ensuring that strikes comply with legal requirements, including notice periods and prohibitions during conciliation or adjudication. This institutional framework aims to make strikes more organized and less spontaneous, aligning with the Code’s overall emphasis on structured dispute resolution.
Threshold Changes for Government Approval
The Industrial Relations Code makes significant changes to the threshold at which employers must obtain government approval before implementing layoffs, retrenchment, or closure of establishments. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, establishments employing one hundred or more workers required prior government permission for these actions. The new Code raises this threshold to three hundred workers, substantially expanding the number of establishments that can implement such measures without government approval [5].
This threshold increase represents one of the most controversial aspects of the Industrial Relations Code. Proponents argue that it provides employers with greater flexibility to respond to market conditions, reducing bureaucratic delays and promoting ease of doing business. They contend that the previous threshold of one hundred workers was too low, particularly for medium-sized enterprises, and that raising it to three hundred workers allows more businesses to make necessary restructuring decisions without government interference.
Critics express concern that the higher threshold reduces protections for workers in establishments employing between one hundred and three hundred workers, who previously enjoyed the security of government scrutiny before layoffs or retrenchment. They argue that this change tilts the balance too far in favor of employers and may lead to increased job insecurity. The debate reflects the ongoing tension between promoting business flexibility and protecting worker rights.
For establishments employing three hundred or more workers, the requirement for prior government approval before layoffs, retrenchment, or closure remains in place. Employers must apply to the appropriate government authority, providing justification for the proposed action and complying with procedural requirements. During the approval process, the government considers factors including the reasons for the proposed action, its impact on workers, and whether the employer has complied with all legal obligations including notice periods and compensation.
Re-skilling Fund for Retrenched Workers
The Industrial Relations Code introduces an innovative provision requiring the creation of a re-skilling fund to support workers who face retrenchment. Employers must contribute to this fund an amount equal to fifteen days’ wages last drawn by each retrenched worker [5]. The fund aims to provide financial support and training opportunities to help displaced workers transition to new employment.
This provision represents a progressive approach to managing the social costs of economic restructuring. Rather than simply allowing employers to retrench workers with payment of statutory compensation, the Code creates a mechanism for investing in workers’ future employability. The re-skilling fund acknowledges that job loss often requires workers to acquire new skills to remain competitive in the labour market, particularly in industries undergoing technological change or economic transformation.
Implementation of the re-skilling fund requires clarification regarding its management, administration, and the specific programs it will support. The Code authorizes the appropriate government to prescribe rules regarding contributions from sources other than employers and the purposes for which the fund may be utilized. Questions remain about how workers will access re-skilling opportunities, what types of training programs will be offered, and how the effectiveness of these programs will be measured.
The creation of the re-skilling fund reflects a shift toward active labour market policies that focus not only on protecting workers from unfair dismissal but also on equipping them with tools for adaptation and mobility. This approach recognizes that in a dynamic economy, some degree of workforce adjustment is inevitable, but that society has an obligation to help workers navigate these transitions successfully.
Increased Penalties and Enhanced Enforcement
The Industrial Relations Code significantly increases penalties for various violations compared to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. First-time offenses relating to important provisions such as those governing layoffs, retrenchment, standing orders, and unfair labour practices attract fines up to ten lakh rupees [1]. Repeated offenses may result in fines up to twenty lakh rupees or imprisonment for up to six months, or both.
These enhanced penalties reflect the legislature’s determination to ensure compliance with industrial relations law. The substantial financial consequences of violations create strong incentives for employers to follow proper procedures, particularly regarding notice requirements, government approvals, and payment of compensation. For larger employers, the penalties remain proportionate to their size while for smaller establishments, they represent a significant deterrent.
The Code also addresses enforcement mechanisms by empowering labour inspectors to investigate complaints, examine records, and recommend prosecution for violations. The strengthened enforcement regime aims to move beyond the often-criticized weak implementation of labour laws, where statutory protections existed on paper but received inadequate enforcement in practice. Effective enforcement requires not only strong penalties but also adequate inspection infrastructure and political will to apply sanctions consistently.
However, questions persist about enforcement capacity, particularly given the large number of industrial establishments across India and the limited number of labour inspectors available to monitor compliance. The success of the enhanced penalty regime will depend substantially on whether governments invest in building enforcement capacity and whether they resist pressures to grant exemptions or look the other way when violations occur.
Impact on Industrial Harmony and Worker Rights
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 provisions on strikes and lockouts generate diverse perspectives regarding their impact on industrial harmony and worker rights. Supporters argue that the Code promotes stability by establishing clear procedures, reducing ambiguity about when strikes are legal, and ensuring that both employers and workers follow structured dispute resolution processes. They contend that mandatory notice periods and prohibitions during conciliation or adjudication protect the integrity of these processes and encourage parties to resolve disputes through dialogue rather than confrontation.
Critics raise concerns that the extensive restrictions on strikes tilt the balance too far in favor of employers, potentially weakening workers’ bargaining power. They point out that extending strike prohibitions to all industrial establishments, rather than limiting them to public utilities, constrains workers’ ability to use collective action effectively. The requirement of fourteen days’ notice, while reasonable in principle, may allow employers to take preemptive measures such as hiring replacement workers or building inventory in anticipation of strikes, thereby reducing the effectiveness of this traditional labour weapon.
The inclusion of concerted casual leave within the definition of strike addresses a real problem where workers would collectively take leave to disrupt production while claiming they were not on strike. However, this provision also raises concerns about potential misuse, where legitimate simultaneous leave-taking by workers due to genuine reasons might be characterized as an illegal strike. The distinction between coordinated leave intended to pressure employers and coincidental leave-taking for legitimate purposes may not always be clear-cut.
From the perspective of industrial harmony, the Code’s emphasis on structured processes and negotiating unions has the potential to channel industrial conflict into more institutionalized and less disruptive forms. By creating clear procedures for union recognition, negotiation, and dispute resolution, the Code may reduce spontaneous or wildcat strikes in favor of more organized industrial action that follows legal requirements. This could benefit employers, workers, and society by making industrial relations more predictable and less prone to sudden disruptions.
Comparative Analysis with International Standards
International labour standards, particularly those established by the International Labour Organization, recognize workers’ right to organize and bargain collectively, including the right to strike as a means of defending their interests. ILO Convention 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise and Convention 98 on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining establish fundamental principles regarding workers’ collective rights, though they do not explicitly mention strikes.
The ILO’s Committee on Freedom of Association has consistently recognized the right to strike as a corollary of freedom of association, while acknowledging that this right is not absolute and may be subject to certain limitations. Acceptable restrictions include prohibiting strikes in essential services where interruption would endanger life, health, or safety, requiring advance notice and conciliation procedures, and prohibiting strikes during the term of collective agreements.
The Industrial Relations Code’s approach to strikes reflects some alignment with international standards by maintaining notice requirements and prohibiting strikes during dispute resolution processes. However, the expansion of restrictions to all industrial establishments, rather than limiting them to truly essential services, raises questions about compatibility with ILO principles that emphasize limiting strike restrictions to services where interruption would endanger the public.
India has ratified numerous ILO conventions but not Conventions 87 and 98, the core freedom of association conventions. The Industrial Relations Code’s provisions on strikes and collective bargaining should ideally be evaluated against both domestic constitutional principles and international best practices. Achieving an appropriate balance requires recognizing workers’ legitimate interests in collective action while accommodating employers’ need for operational stability and society’s interest in avoiding unnecessary disruption.
Conclusion
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 represents a significant reform of India’s industrial relations framework, introducing new restrictions and notice requirements for strikes and lockouts that apply across all industrial establishments. By consolidating three major labour laws into a unified framework, the Code aims to simplify compliance, promote ease of doing business, and create clearer procedures for managing industrial conflict.
The mandatory fourteen-day notice requirement for strikes and lockouts, the prohibition on industrial action during conciliation and adjudication, and the enhanced penalties for violations reflect the legislature’s emphasis on structured dispute resolution and industrial stability. These provisions, combined with innovations such as negotiating union recognition and the re-skilling fund, create a modernized framework that seeks to balance the interests of employers, workers, and society.
However, the practical impact of these reforms will depend on implementation, enforcement, and how courts interpret the new provisions when disputes arise. The tension between protecting workers’ collective bargaining rights and promoting industrial harmony will continue to generate debate and require careful balancing in individual cases. As the Code awaits full implementation, stakeholders across the industrial relations landscape must prepare to adapt to this new regulatory environment while advocating for interpretations and applications that serve the ultimate goal of fair and productive workplace relations.
References
[1] Neeti Niyaman. (2025). Industrial Relations Code, 2020 Explained. Available at: https://neetiniyaman.com/industrial-relations-code-2020/
[2] iPleaders. (2021). Industrial Relations Code 2020: an overview. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/industrial-relations-code-2020-an-overview/
[3] Supreme Court of India. (1962). Kameshwar Prasad and Others vs The State of Bihar and Another, AIR 1962 SC 1166. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/687159/
[4] Supreme Court of India. (2003). T.K. Rangarajan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu & Others, AIR 2003 SC 3032. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88909580/
[5] Lawrbit. (2025). The Industrial Relations Code, 2020. Available at: https://www.lawrbit.com/article/industrial-relations-code-2020/
[6] Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys. Industrial Relations Code, 2020 – An overview. Available at: https://www.lakshmisri.com/insights/articles/industrial-relations-code-2020-an-overview/
[7] Our Legal World. (2020). Strikes and Lockouts under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Available at: https://www.ourlegalworld.com/strikes-and-lockouts-under-industrial-disputes-act-1947/
[8] LawBhoomi. (2024). Strike and Lockout. Available at: https://lawbhoomi.com/strike-and-lockout/
[9] Legal Service India. Strike And Lock-Out Under Industrial Dispute Act 1947. Available at: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-12602-strike-and-lock-out-under-industrial-dispute-act-1947.html
