Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Legality of Strike - A strike is deemed illegal if it does not comply with statutory requirements, such as giving notice in prescribed form and within specified timeframes. An illegal strike is defined as one commenced or continued without proper notice or in violation of legal provisions. For instance, the Act specifies that notice must be in Form I and sent by registered post, and a strike called without adhering to these procedures can be declared illegal ["1999 Supreme(Online)(SC) 28"].
Legal Status of Strike - The mere act of participating in a strike does not automatically render it illegal; its legality depends on adherence to statutory procedures and whether it is declared illegal by authorities. For example, a strike that is not declared illegal by the department is not automatically unlawful, and deductions from wages during such strikes are subject to legal scrutiny ["2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 6143"].
Impact on Wage Deductions - Wage deductions for periods of strike are only legal if the strike is declared illegal. If a strike remains undeclared or unrecognized as illegal, deductions may be contested. The law permits deductions for illegal strikes, but the justification must be adjudicated, and deductions for justified or legal strikes are permissible ["1969 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19"].
Court and Authority Judgments - Courts have recognized that a strike's legality hinges on compliance with legal procedures. When a strike is called in violation of statutory provisions, it is deemed illegal, and wage deductions during such periods are justified. Conversely, strikes that follow proper procedures are considered lawful, and deductions are not automatically permitted ["2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 453"].
Right to Strike and Restrictions - While employees have a right to strike, this right is not absolute. The Supreme Court has explicitly held that lawyers, for example, have no right to go on strike or boycott, emphasizing that strikes in certain sectors (like judiciary) are unlawful and can be viewed as contempt ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 2066"], ["2023 0 Supreme(MP) 805"].
Consequences of Illegal Strikes - Strikes declared illegal can lead to penalties such as wage deductions and disciplinary actions. The law also considers strikes that are not declared illegal as lawful, provided procedural requirements are met. Unlawful strikes that disrupt administration or violate legal provisions are liable to be declared illegal and may attract sanctions ["2021 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 44645"].
Strike and Disqualification in Legal Contexts - In legal cases, dismissals or judgments based on procedural violations related to strikes (e.g., participating in an illegal strike) can be considered as grounds for disciplinary action or as a strike count under certain statutes like the PLRA. Dismissals based on legal grounds or procedural violations are sometimes treated as strikes, but dismissals based solely on immunity or other non-strike grounds are not counted ["2023 Supreme(US)(ca2) 121"], ["2023 Supreme(US)(ca2) 122"].
Summary and Conclusion - Participation in a lawful strike, conducted in accordance with statutory procedures, is protected and not considered illegal. However, strikes that violate legal requirements or are declared illegal by authorities can be classified as illegal strikes, justifying wage deductions and disciplinary measures. The legality of a strike depends on adherence to prescribed procedures, and courts have consistently emphasized that unauthorized or procedural violations render strikes unlawful ["1999 Supreme(Online)(SC) 28"], ["2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 6143"], ["1969 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 453"], ["2023 Supreme(US)(ca2) 121"].
References:- ["1999 Supreme(Online)(SC) 28"]- ["2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 6143"]- ["1969 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 453"]- ["2023 Supreme(US)(ca2) 121"]- ["2023 Supreme(US)(ca2) 122"]- ["2024 Supreme(US)(ca3) 52"]- ["2023 Supreme(US)(scotus) 21134"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(MP) 805"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(MP) 806"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 453"]- ["2023 Supreme(US)(ca5) 262"]- ["
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS AND TRADE (RESPONDENT) vs MERCER (APPELLANT) - Supreme Court United Kingdom
"]- ["2024 Supreme(US)(ca6) 21"]
In legal proceedings, parties often seek swift resolutions to baseless or abusive claims. A common question arises: Can you claims under Indian law? (noting the query can you strike u likely refers to striking out ). This power allows courts to dismiss untenable claims early, preventing . However, it's exercised with extreme caution. This post breaks down the principles, criteria, and judicial approach, drawing from established precedents. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Under Indian law, particularly the , Order 18 Rule 19(1), courts may claims or only in plain and obvious cases where they disclose
. This is a serious judicial power, not to be used lightly or as a substitute for trial
.
Key principles include:- Caution is paramount: Courts emphasize restraint, ensuring proceed to full hearing
.- Not for : Applications cannot preemptively decide factual disputes
.- Threshold test: must be manifestly , an , or
.
For instance, allegations of conspiracy, fraud, or negligence were upheld as non-, warranting trial rather than striking out
.
Courts apply strict criteria to balance efficiency and justice:
fail if they reveal no viable legal claim on their face
.
Claims lacking substance or pursued to harass opponents may be struck
.
Repeated, scandalous, or unsustainable qualify
.
If claims violate settled law without , dismissal follows
.
In one ruling, the court dismissed a strike-out application because claims involved , refusing premature disposal
. Judges reiterated: Striking out should only occur in plain and obvious cases, meaning cases where the claim is clearly untenable without trial
.
Indian courts consistently urge caution. This power isn't a shortcut; it's reserved for egregious cases. For example:- Applications were rejected where raised arguable points
.- Courts avoid substituting trial, focusing on whether are
.
This aligns with broader , ensuring access to justice unless abuse is evident.
While pertains to , legal discussions often intersect with industrial strikes, where participation can lead to disciplinary claims. Courts distinguish these but apply similar scrutiny.
In labor disputes, illegal strikes trigger consequences:- Illegal strike declarations: Employers may seek to declare strikes unlawful under the (Sections 22, 23), but repeated writs are discouraged 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3415. The court noted: The enforcement of rights and remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act must be sought exclusively within the statute 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3415. Writ petitions were dismissed, urging managerial remedies instead.
Disciplinary enquiries for striking work: Participation in strikes can lead to charges, proven on , not 2005 0 Supreme(Bom) 406. Findings based on evidence (e.g., admissions) are upheld unless perverse 2005 0 Supreme(Bom) 406. supervise under Section 11A but cannot re-appraise sufficiency if evidence exists 2005 0 Supreme(Bom) 406. One case quashed Labour Court interference: There was sustainable finding of based on evidence... sufficiency not for Labour Court 2005 0 Supreme(Bom) 406.
Strikes in : Medical or teacher strikes are often deemed illegal. For doctors: Strike by Medical professionals... held illegal with directions for punishment 2011 0 Supreme(Del) 189. Similarly, teacher strikes harming students: Strike is definitely not the way and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that it is their fundamental or legal right 2011 0 Supreme(Del) 189 2010 0 Supreme(Del) 752.
Grameen postal strikes: Strike periods lead to and engagement breaks for incitement 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13381.
These illustrate how strike-related claims (e.g., disciplinary) may face strike-out if baseless, mirroring pleading standards
. Courts ensure procedural compliance, avoiding premature dismissals
.
.
.
.
In public sector disputes, petitioners cannot repeatedly seek declarations on strike illegality; use 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3415.
Courts recommend restraint: Reserve strike-out for cases
.
Yes, claims may be struck out under Indian law, but only in clear, obvious cases of frivolity, abuse, or unsustainability
. Courts wield this cautiously, prioritizing trials for substantive justice. Whether or strike-related disciplinary claims, the principle endures: No shortcuts without plain untenability.
Key Takeaways:- Exercise strike-out power sparingly
.- Criteria: No cause of action, , abuse
.- Strikes: Illegal ones invite discipline, but remedies statutory 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3415 2005 0 Supreme(Bom) 406.- Seek professional advice tailored to facts.
This framework promotes efficient, fair litigation in India.
: Core on striking out under .
: Procedural compliance in claims.
by the settlement, the strike would be illegal. ... Illegal strike and lockout. -- In this Act, unless the context requires otherwise, -- ... (1) 'illegal strike' means a strike which is commenced or continued -- ... (a) without giving to the employer notice of strike in the prescribed form, or within fourteen days of the giving of such notice; ... (b) where ... Notice of strike. -- The notice of strike under Clause.(a) of sub-s.(1) of S.24 shall be in Form I and shal....
It also does not term the strike as illegal. Therefore, without even application of mind as to whether the strike is illegal or not, the decision is made not to pay for the period of strike. ... But Clause 44 does not refer to the nature of strike or whether such a proposed strike is in violation of Section 22 or Section 24 of the ID Act. ... The issue is as to whether the strike is legal or illegal is a matter that requires adjudication and therefore claiming that the proposed #HL_STA....
Page 7 at 675–76 (holding that a dismissal in part for quasi-judicial immunity was not a strike because “Congress’ omission of immunity-based dismissal from the strike provision in § 1915(g) evidences its intent generally not to include this dismissal ground as a strike”). ... Congress could step in to add jurisdictional dismissals to the PLRA strike provision. ... The dismissal of this action, too, does not count as a strike. A dismissal premised on Eleventh Amendment immunity does not appea....
The Respondents did not produce any such order to evidence that the strike for the period in question has been declared as illegal by the Department; when participating of strike is taken as one of the allegation in the article of strike. ... Period of strike shall be treated as under: (i) The period of strike will not only result in deduction of TRCA for the period of absence during the strike but also break in engagement on account of incitement, violence and sabotage. ... is any m....
The district court correctly concluded that Griffin I constitutes a strike. This Court has not yet addressed when a strike should accrue following a dismissal on alternative grounds. ... A dismissal of an appeal as frivolous counts as a separate strike. See Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 165, 167–69 (2d Cir. 2010). Griffin II is, accordingly, a strike. III. ... The district court therefore properly assessed a strike based on Griffin I. 1 II. ... Second, considering a res....
strike. ... participate in the strike. ... In the case on hand, the call for strike had mostly affected the unorganized sector. In view of strike by the Government employees, the unorganized sector also lost their earnings on the days of the strike. ... All the employees who took part in the strike were given the opportunity to make good the loss of participating in the strike by availing eligible leave. ... Strike as a weapon is mostly misused which....
Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45, wherein the Constitution Bench of the Court held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or even token strike or even give a call for strike. Even prior to the judgment in Ex. ... Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh have already resolved not to go on strike, in due deference to the law declared by the Supreme Court of India, we hold that any act of individual lawyers or their association (by whatever name called) to go on strike or to give call for strike o....
The district court correctly concluded that Griffin I constitutes a strike. This Court has not yet addressed when a strike should accrue following a dismissal on alternative grounds. ... A dismissal of an appeal as frivolous counts as a separate strike. See Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 165, 167–69 (2d Cir. 2010). Griffin II is, accordingly, a strike. III. ... The district court therefore properly assessed a strike based on Griffin I. 1 II. ... Second, considering a res....
from wages for the strike period was accordingly illegal. ... It may be noticed that S.9(2) does not prohibit any deduction from wages for absence from duty due to strike, justified or unjustified; on the other hand, the proviso authorises a further deduction where workers absent themselves due to illegal strike. ... Of course, in cases where further deduction is made under the proviso to S.9 (2), the Authority is bound to adjudicate upon the justification for the strike because it is only where the strike#HL_E....
relevant date for strike-counting purposes. ... But when a court dismisses a claim using two equally sufficient rationales, one of which is strike- qualifying, that claim has been dismissed on a strike-qualifying ground and its dismissal counts toward a strike. ... Because the entire action was not dismissed on strike- qualifying grounds, Pillai does not constitute a strike. See Byrd, 715 F.3d at 126; Wetzel, 15 F.4th at 280. ... The only question is whether the Court’s treatment of th....
However, one has to ponder over whether inspite of there being a legal prohibition, can any section of the society or aggrieved persons can resort to strike as a remedy. Whether it will bring the desired result which the workmen want to achieve or not is the concern of this Court.
How can one accept that students would suffer because of the teachers no holding examination and doing their duties? Strike is definitely not the way and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that it is their fundamental or legal right.”
How can one accept that students would suffer because of the teachers no holding examination and doing their duties? How can one accept that students would suffer because of the teachers no holding examination and doing their duties? But in the case at hand, the Professors and teachers have gone on strike to cripple the education system. Strike is definitely not the way and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that it is their fundamental or legal right.” It is worth noting that in certain countries a single day absence by way of strike from teaching is regarded as i....
However, one has to ponder over whether inspite of there being a legal prohibition, can any section of the society or aggrieved persons can resort to strike as a remedy. A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court reported in AIR 1997 KERALA 291 [Bharat Kumar K.Pancha and another vs. State of Kerala and others] headed by Justice K.G.Balakrishnan, [as he then was], held that no political party has right to call for a bandh. Whether it will bring the desired result which the workmen want to achieve or not is the concern of this Court.
You also struck work and participated in the said strike. "
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
