The Bombay High Court has clarified a critical boundary in industrial relations law by holding that contract workers' unions cannot lawfully call strikes against principal employers with whom they have no direct employer-employee relationship. This ruling resolves longstanding ambiguity in the application of strike prohibitions under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Industrial Relations Code, offering immediate guidance to employers, unions, and labour authorities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., sought to restrain a proposed strike by two respondent unions: one representing regular employees and another representing contract workers. The contract workers' union, Respondent No.2, issued a strike notice dated 28 January 2026, demanding better terms despite having no direct employment contract with the petitioner. The petitioner contended that such a strike was legally impermissible because the Industrial Disputes Act and the Industrial Relations Code restrict strikes only to those employed directly by the employer.
Procedural History
- 28 January 2026: Strike notices issued by Respondent Nos.1 and 2, calling for a strike on 12 February 2026.
- 5 February 2026: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1980 of 2026 seeking injunction against the strike.
- 10 February 2026: Court heard arguments and recorded the respondents' undertaking not to proceed with the strike pending conciliation.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a declaration that the strike notice issued by the contract workers' union was illegal and void ab initio, arguing that Sections 22, 23, and 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and Sections 62 and 63 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, apply only to persons in direct employment with the employer.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a union representing contract workers, who have no direct employer-employee relationship with the principal employer, can lawfully issue a strike notice under Sections 22, 23, and 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or Sections 62 and 63 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner relied on the plain language of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which prohibits strikes by persons employed in a public utility service, and Section 62 of the Industrial Relations Code, which extends similar restrictions. He argued that the term "persons employed" refers exclusively to those in direct employment. He cited State of Punjab v. Labour Court to support the proposition that contractual workers are not "employees" of the principal employer for the purpose of invoking industrial dispute provisions.
For the Respondent
The respondents did not contest the legal position on standing but undertook not to proceed with the strike pending conciliation. Their counsel acknowledged the petitioner’s legal argument regarding the absence of an employer-employee relationship but emphasized the practical need for contract workers to seek redress through collective action.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework governing strikes and found that both the Industrial Disputes Act and the Industrial Relations Code are premised on the existence of a direct employment relationship. The phrase "persons employed" in Section 22 and Section 62 cannot be stretched to include workers engaged through contractors. The Court noted that the legislative intent behind these provisions is to prevent disruption in essential services by those who are directly bound by the terms of employment.
"The statutory prohibition on strikes applies only to those who are in direct service of the employer. Contract workers, however integrated into the operations, remain employees of the contractor and not of the principal employer."
The Court further observed that while contract workers may have legitimate grievances, their remedies lie against the contractor under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, or through appropriate civil or administrative channels - not by striking against the principal employer. The Court emphasized that allowing such strikes would create legal chaos by blurring the lines of liability and responsibility.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that strike notices issued by contract workers’ unions against principal employers are legally invalid under Sections 22, 23, and 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act and Sections 62 and 63 of the Industrial Relations Code, as no employer-employee relationship exists. The strike was stayed pending conciliation, and the legal position was affirmed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Contract Workers Cannot Strike Against Principal Employers
- Practitioners must now advise clients that any strike notice issued by a union representing contract workers against a principal employer is void and unenforceable.
- Employers may file urgent writ petitions to restrain such notices, citing this judgment as binding precedent.
- Labour authorities must reject strike registrations filed by contract worker unions against principal employers.
Legal Remedies Must Be Directed at Contractors
- Contract workers must pursue grievances through the contractor, not the principal employer.
- Claims for wages, benefits, or working conditions must be filed before the appropriate labour court or authority under the Contract Labour Act.
- Principal employers are not liable for industrial disputes arising from contractor-employee relations unless they are found to be "deemed employers" under Section 2(q) of the Contract Labour Act.
Conciliation Does Not Confer Legal Standing
- Even if conciliation is ongoing, it does not validate an otherwise illegal strike notice.
- The Court’s acceptance of the undertaking not to strike was procedural, not substantive - legal invalidity remains.
- Employers should not assume that voluntary non-strike agreements imply legal recognition of the union’s standing.
