The Kerala High Court has clarified that statutory prohibitions on strikes under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act apply to all employees in notified public utility services, regardless of whether they qualify as 'workmen' under the Act. This ruling redefines the scope of industrial dispute mechanisms in critical economic sectors like banking.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The Federal Bank Ltd., a major scheduled commercial bank with over 15,000 employees, initiated conciliation proceedings under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 after the Federal Bank Officers Association (FBOA) issued a notice of strike. The FBOA, representing officers in Scale I to III cadres, contended that its members are not 'workmen' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act and therefore cannot be subject to its provisions.
Procedural History
- June 2023: The Central Government notified banking services as a Public Utility Service (PUS) under Section 2(n) of the ID Act.
- 2025: FBOA issued a strike notice; Federal Bank responded by invoking Section 22 and requesting conciliation.
- WP(C) No. 9196/2023: FBOA filed a writ petition challenging the conciliation notice, arguing that no 'industrial dispute' existed as its members are non-workmen.
- 28 March 2025: The Single Judge quashed the conciliation notice, holding that Section 22 applies only to workmen.
- WA No. 1363/2025: Federal Bank appealed this decision to the Division Bench.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the Single Judge’s order and uphold the validity of the conciliation proceedings initiated under Section 22. The respondent sought to affirm that only 'workmen' can trigger or be subject to conciliation under the ID Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act prohibits strikes by any person employed in a Public Utility Service, even if such person does not qualify as a 'workman' under Section 2(s), and whether conciliation proceedings may be initiated on the basis of a strike notice alone, irrespective of the existence of an industrial dispute.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The Federal Bank argued that Section 22 uses the phrase 'no person employed in a public utility service', which is deliberately broader than 'workman'. It cited Section 2(q) defining 'strike' as cessation by a 'body of persons', not limited to workmen. The Bank emphasized that banking, as a notified PUS, is vital to national economic stability, and that Section 24 renders any strike in contravention of Section 22 illegal, regardless of employee status. It relied on Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management and T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu to show that Parliament intended a comprehensive prohibition.
For the Respondent
The FBOA contended that Section 22 cannot be invoked without an 'industrial dispute' as defined under Section 2(k), which requires a dispute between employer and workman. It argued that Section 22(1)(d) - prohibiting strikes during conciliation - implicitly limits the scope of Section 22 to workmen. It relied on Mukand Ltd. v. Mukand Staff & Officers' Association and Narendra Kumar Sen v. Labour Appellate Tribunal to assert that conciliation officers lack jurisdiction over non-workmen. It also claimed that its service conditions are governed by internal rules, not the ID Act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed textual, contextual, and purposive interpretation of Chapter V of the ID Act. It observed that Section 22 uses the term 'any person', while Section 23 explicitly refers to 'workmen'. This distinction demonstrates Parliament’s intent to impose a broader prohibition on strikes in PUSs, irrespective of employment category.
"The expression 'any person employed in a public utility service' cannot be read down to mean only 'workman'. Had Parliament intended such a limitation, it would have used the term 'workman' as it did in Section 23."
The Court rejected the argument that Section 22(1)(d) - which refers to conciliation proceedings - controls the interpretation of the entire Section 22. It held that sub-clauses cannot override the principal provision. The Court further distinguished Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate, noting that the Supreme Court had explicitly held that 'any person' in Section 22 is not synonymous with 'workman'.
The Court emphasized that Section 22 is not a mechanism to resolve industrial disputes - it is a preventive measure to avert disruptions in services essential to public welfare. The notification of banking as a PUS under Section 2(n) automatically triggers the application of Section 22, irrespective of whether an industrial dispute exists. The Court held that the moment a strike notice is communicated, the employer is entitled to invoke conciliation under Section 22.
The Court also affirmed that the right to strike is not a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c), as held in T.K. Rangarajan and All India Bank Employees' Association. The statutory regime under the ID Act is a reasonable restriction in the public interest.
The Verdict
The appellant, Federal Bank Ltd., won. The Court held that Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act applies to all employees in a notified Public Utility Service, including managerial and supervisory officers who are not 'workmen'. Conciliation proceedings may be initiated upon receipt of a strike notice, without requiring an existing industrial dispute. The impugned judgment was set aside and the writ petition dismissed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Strike Notices Trigger Mandatory Conciliation
- Practitioners must now treat any strike notice issued by employees in a notified PUS - whether workmen or not - as a trigger for Section 22 conciliation.
- Employers may initiate conciliation proceedings immediately upon receipt of strike notice, without waiting for an industrial dispute to crystallize.
- Failure to initiate conciliation after a strike notice may expose the employer to liability under Section 24 for not preventing an illegal strike.
Non-Workmen Are Not Exempt from ID Act Prohibitions
- Officers, managers, and supervisors in banking, transport, or other PUSs cannot claim exemption from Section 22 on the basis of their job category.
- Internal service rules or settlement agreements cannot override the statutory prohibition under Section 22.
- Trade unions representing non-workmen must comply with the 6-week notice requirement and avoid strikes during conciliation.
Conciliation Is a Safety Valve, Not a Jurisdictional Gatekeeper
- Conciliation under Section 22 is not a prerequisite for an industrial dispute - it is a statutory mechanism to prevent one.
- The role of the Conciliation Officer is procedural and preventive, not adjudicatory.
- Courts must not conflate the requirements of Section 22 with those of Section 10 or Section 12, which govern dispute resolution.
