AIR 1960 SUPREME COURT 893 ::1960 2 LabLJ 275

Supreme Court Of India

(From Labour Court, Coimbatore)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. C. Das Gupta , JJ

(A) Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) , S.2(kkk)— 'Lay off' - Expression 'any other reason' in the definition should be construed to mean reason similar or analogous to the preceding reasons - Case of 'lay off' specified in S. 25E (iii) is not inconsistent with above interpretation. (S) AIR 1956 All 498, Approved. (Para 6) (B) Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) , S.2(l), S.2(kkk), S.25— 'Lock out' and 'lay off' - Distinction between pointed out - 'Lock-out' does not fall under definition of 'lay off' in S. 2 (kkk), so as the entitle workers to claim 'lay off' compensation under S. 25. Lock out can be described as the antithesis of a strike. Just as a strike is a weapon available to the employees for enforcing their industrial demands, a lock out is a weapon available to the employer to persuade by a coercive process the employees to see his point of view and to accept his demands. The use of both the weapons by the respective parties must, however, be subject to the relevant provisions of the Act. 1952 Lab AC 62 (LATI), Rel. on.(Para 7) 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 s....