Go-Slow Actions in Indian Industrial Law: A Case for Reclassification and Reform

Introduction

Go-slow is a form of industrial action in which the workmen deliberately work at a slower pace than usual to cut down production.¹ This method is used to exert pressure on the employer to address the grievances of workers such as dissatisfaction with their working conditions, wages or other aspects of their employment.² Though at first instance it may seem like a form of strike, it has a contentious status in the Indian industrial laws.

In light of this, the focus of this research paper is to analyse the status of go-slow and examine its adequacy. With regards to that, the paper first, examines go-slow as a form of strike. Secondly, it analyses the categorisation of go-slow action as an unfair labour practice by the industrial laws. Thirdly, the paper examines the underlying reasons behind the adoption of go-slow actions. Lastly, the paper evaluates the adequacy of the status.

Categorisation of go-slow as a strike

In India strikes and industrial disputes are governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act)³. The Act defines strike as the cessation of work by the employees acting in combination, accompanied by a concerted refusal to work.⁴ Further, in Sri Ramachandra Spg. Mills Ltd. v. Province of Madras⁵, the Court identified two necessary elements of a strike. Firstly, there must be an explicit intention among the employees to exert pressure on the employer and secondly, the workers should abstain from work.⁶

Following this reasoning, courts have consistently excluded go-slow actions from the category of strikes, as such actions, while aimed at exerting pressure on the employer, involve working at a reduced pace rather than a complete cessation of work.⁷ Instead, go-slow is classified as an industrial tactic or activity.⁸ For instance, in Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar, the Court consistently referred to “go-slow” as a tactic or activity.⁹ These terms have been used in several judicial decisions, affirming that “go-slow” is not recognised as a strike by the courts.

However, this categorisation merits revaluation as other forms of strikes like partial cessation of work do not involve complete abstaining from work yet are categorised as strike.¹⁰ Partial work strikes are wherein the workers refuse to do the full work assigned to them and perform it only to some extent.¹¹ The courts have consistently interpreted partial work as a form of strike. For instance, in Buckingham & Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Workers, the Supreme Court addressed whether the stoppage of work for two to four hours could be considered a strike.¹² The Court held that it would be a strike as the act involved cessation of work even if for a short duration.¹³

More importantly, the Court focused on the aspect that there was a concerted refusal by a large number of workers to complete the work which fulfils the ingredients of a strike.¹⁴ Further, in Mehnga Ram v. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, the Court held that cessation of work, even if for a few minutes, would be considered a strike, as herein workers were acting in combination and there was a concerted refusal to complete the work.¹⁵

From these decisions, the key rationale for including partial work strikes does not lie in complete cessation of work; rather, it lies in the fact that workers are acting in combination and demonstrating a concerted refusal to complete the assigned tasks.¹⁶ The non-completion of duties exerts pressure on the employer, which is central to the concept of a strike. Therefore, it can be concluded that a complete cessation of work is not an essential element of the definition; instead, the courts have emphasised the significance of a concerted refusal by the workers to complete the assigned work.¹⁷

Using this reasoning, a go-slow strategy could also be considered a strike, as the deliberate reduction in production leads to the incomplete fulfilment of assigned duties. By intentionally slowing down production, workers act in combination and demonstrate a concerted refusal to complete their work, thereby pressuring the employer to meet their demands.¹⁸ This aligns with the logic used to categorise partial work as a strike. Consequently, the classification of go-slow as a strike warrants careful consideration under the framework of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947¹⁹.

Go-slow actions as unfair labour practice

Instead of recognising go-slow as a form of strike, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 classifies it as an unfair labour practice by the employees.²⁰ Section 2(ra) of the Act defines unfair labour practices as those enumerated under Schedule V of the Act²¹. Part II of the Schedule explicitly categorises staging, instigating or encouraging go-slow as an unfair labour practice by the employees.²² Similarly, the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 retains this categorisation of go-slow as an unfair labour practice.²³ Further, under Section 25-U of the Act, engaging in unfair labour practices, including go-slow, is punishable.²⁴

In addition to being classified as an unfair labour practice, go-slow action is also regarded as a misconduct.²⁵ This perspective is evident in Mani Lal v. Matchless Industries of India, wherein the Delhi High Court held that go-slow is a serious misconduct.²⁶ Further, the Supreme Court in Jay Engg. Works Ltd. v. Union of India, reiterated that go-slow action is a misconduct and an unfair labour practice.²⁷

This legal framework underscores that go-slow strategy is impermissible in India. The rationale behind such categorisation is expounded in Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Jai Singh²⁸. Herein, the Supreme Court observed that go-slow is even more damaging than a strike.²⁹ As, during a traditional strike the machinery can be turned off minimising damage.³⁰ In contrast, during a go-slow action the machine is kept at a reduced pace potentially causing damage to its parts.³¹ This risk is a significant factor contributing to the categorisation of a go-slow as an unfair labour practice. Furthermore, completing the work assigned is considered a duty of the employee and intentional curtailing of production is considered a breach of the duty thereby constituting misconduct.³²

However, this reasoning appears heavily employer centric focusing solely on the damage caused to the employer while disregarding the perspective of the workers. Therefore, it is crucial to examine the underlying reasons for the adoption of go-slow action over a normal strike. Understanding this could illuminate on the persistence of the practice despite its classification as an unfair labour practice punishable under law.

Understanding the preference for go-slow actions

The possible reason behind the preference of workers for go-slow actions was elaborated in Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. case³³. The Supreme Court explained that workers resort to go-slow action because they claim to have remain employed and thus entitled to full wages while exerting pressure on the employees.³⁴ However, this reasoning appears flawed. In Bank of India v. T.S. Kelawala, the Supreme Court was concerned with question whether the employer was entitled to deduct wages when the employees engage in a go-slow action.³⁵ The Court answered this in affirmative, a principle subsequently upheld in a series of judgments.³⁶

The only procedural safeguard with respect to this was issued in Bata India Ltd. v. Workmen wherein the Supreme Court mandated that workers should be given an opportunity to be heard before the deduction in wages.³⁷ Nevertheless, the principle remains that the employer can deduct wages when workers engage in a go-slow action. Thus, workers are not entitled to full wages when they stage a go-slow action.

On the contrary, the jurisprudence regarding entitlement to wages during strikes establishes a different standard. In Crompton Greaves v. Workmen, the Supreme Court emphasised that workers are entitled to full wages if the strike is legal and justified.³⁸ While it is believed that this position changed with the case of Bank of India v. T.S. Kelawala, this perception is a misinterpretation.³⁹ In this case, the Court held that the legality of a strike does not save workers from a deduction in wages rather only from disciplinary action.⁴⁰ Following this, it is believed that despite legality of a strike, the employees are not entitled to wages for the period of strike.⁴¹ However, as clarified in Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak, the question as to whether the strike is justified or not was not asked in Bank of India v. T.S. Kelawala. The Supreme Court clarified that workers are entitled to full wages if it is proved that the strike is legal and justified.⁴²

Accordingly, the legal position is that the workers are entitled to full wages in a legal and justified strike, whereas wages can be deducted if workers engage in a go-slow action. This demonstrates that the preference for go-slow tactics over strike cannot be attributed to wage entitlement.

Additionally, the reasoning that workers prefer go-slow to remain employed is also not sustainable. In Mani Lal v. Matchless Industries of India, the Court held that the punishment of dismissal was commensurate to the act of go-slow by the employee, affirming that employers are within their rights to dismiss workers who participate in go-slow actions.⁴³ Similar decision has been taken in Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Jai Singh, where the Supreme Court itself granted permission to dismiss the employees who had engaged in go-slow action.⁴⁴

Conversely, the legal position regarding strikes offers greater protection to the employees as the employees cannot be dismissed if the strike is legal and justified.⁴⁵ Disciplinary action, including dismissal can only take place in the case of illegal strikes.⁴⁶ Section 24 of the Act enumerates the circumstances under which a strike is considered illegal.⁴⁷ Thus, the employers are prohibited from dismissing the employees for participating in a legal and justified strike.

Following this, while a legal and justified strike offers protection from dismissal, participation in a go-slow action exposes workers to the risk of termination. Therefore, the rationale that workers prefer go-slow actions to remain employed is also untenable.

A possible explanation for the preference of workers to engage in a go-slow action rather than a strike lies in the possibility that the employer may employ new people for the duration of strike.⁴⁸ If new people are employed, the production can continue uninterrupted reducing the ability of the strike to exert pressure on the employer.⁴⁹ Consequently, the workers would be compelled to return back to work under the same conditions.⁵⁰

The preference for go-slow actions stems from the fact that the workers are still physically present at work, which reduces the likelihood of being replaced temporarily.⁵¹ By slowing down production instead of fully stopping work, they avoid complete absenteeism.⁵² Therefore, workers prefer go-slow actions as it is an effective method to exert pressure on their employer.

Necessity of legal reforms

The current industrial legal framework discourages go-slow action. It is categorised as an unfair labour practice punishable by law.⁵³ This situation places workers in a precarious position, where they are compelled to accept prevailing working conditions as strike may not be an effective method to exert pressure and the alternative of go-slow action is not available.

This has also been highlighted in B.R. Singh v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court observed that the bargaining strength of trade unions is significantly reduced if they are not permitted to adopt methods like go-slow action.⁵⁴ The Court further highlighted that go-slow action is acknowledged in other democratic jurisdictions as a legitimate tool for collective bargaining.⁵⁵ Considering this, the position of go-slow in the Indian Industrial law merits reconsideration.

Moreover, there is a misuse of the current legal position by the employers which is illustrated by the case of Workmen v. Motipur Sugar Factory.⁵⁶ This case was concerned with a seasonal sugar factory wherein the employer had notified that the employees are expected to crush 32,000 maunds of sugarcane everyday which was not acceptable to the workers and had led to a disagreement.⁵⁷ When the workers failed to meet the target, the employer alleged that the workers had engaged in a go-slow and dismissed the employees.⁵⁸ The Supreme Court herein engaged in an analysis to analyse whether the standard set was abnormally high.⁵⁹ Considering past records, the Court concluded that the target of 32,000 maunds was reasonable, and thus, the workers could be dismissed for engaging in a go-slow action.⁶⁰

However, herein the Court failed to recognise that a go-slow action is not about failing to meet the past averages as these depend on various factors including the capacity of the workers. Instead, a go-slow involves a deliberate reduction in work to exert pressure on the employer.⁶¹ In this case, there was nothing on record to show that the workers had deliberately reduced the production to exert pressure on the employer.⁶² This case demonstrates how the legal prohibition of go-slow actions can be exploited by employers to enforce stringent production standards and justify the dismissal of workers who fail to meet them.

In light of this, the position of go-slow actions within Indian industrial laws warrants reconsideration. The current framework restricts the ability of the workers to effectively challenge unfair working conditions, as strikes may not always exert sufficient pressure on employers and go-slow actions are prohibited. Furthermore, this framework is being misused by employers, who often threaten workers with the possibility of go-slow actions and subsequent dismissal to coerce them into meeting production demands. Therefore, there is an urgent need for reconsideration of the classification of go-slow action in the Indian industrial laws.

Revaluating the legal status of go-slow

For reconsidering the framework of go-slow action, India can consider the principles espoused by the Committee on Freedom of Association set up by the ILO as India is a member of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).⁶³ The Committee of Experts has opined that when the right to strike is guaranteed by a national legislation, restrictions on any form of strike action including go-slow can only be justified if the action is not peaceful to ensure that industrial actions are not unduly restricted.⁶⁴

In India, the right to strike is not a fundamental right as held in T.K. Rangarajan v. Stateof T.N.⁶⁵ Nevertheless, as noted in Bank of India v. T.S. Kelawala, the working class does have an implied right to strike under the industrial laws.⁶⁶ Following this, the existing legal framework should be reformed to consider go-slow as a form of strike as long as it is peaceful following the ILO recommendations.

Further, the treatment of go-slow actions in other common law jurisdictions can offer valuable insights for reforming the status of go-slow action in India. In the United Kingdom, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, 1992 classifies go-slow as an Action Short of a Strike (ASOS).⁶⁷ Such actions are permissible if they arise from a trade dispute, exclude unlawful picketing, and are endorsed through a properly conducted ballot by the workers.⁶⁸ This framework allows for regulated go-slow actions, providing workers with an avenue for grievance redressal while maintain legal oversight.

Additionally, South African law allows go-slow actions if they meet the criteria set out in the Labour Relations Act, 1956 (LRA).⁶⁹ Such actions are permitted when brought about in a concerted manner and coupled with a work-related demand.⁷⁰ However, go-slow actions are prohibited if they fall under the categories of strikes prohibited by the LRA.⁷¹ Therefore, go-slow actions are considered permissible strikes unless they fall within the prohibited categories outlined by the law.

These approaches suggest a potential framework for the recognition of go-slow actions as a form of strike within a regulated framework. India could acknowledge peaceful go-slow actions as a legitimate form of industrial action, subject to certain conditions, rather than imposing an outright prohibition. Such recognition would provide workers with a lawful and structured mechanism to exert pressure on employers, compelling them to address their grievances, while ensuring adherence to legal boundaries.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the current status of go-slow actions within Indian industrial law reflects a restrictive and employer-centric framework that fails to adequately address the needs and motivations of workers. By categorising go-slow actions as an unfair labour practice and excluding them from the definition of a strike, the law overlooks the underlying pressures workers face in their efforts to seek better working conditions. The preference for go-slow tactics, which enables workers to apply pressure on employers without losing their employment, is driven by pragmatic considerations, yet it is still penalised under existing legal structures.

Reform is urgently needed to create a more balanced approach that recognises the evolving nature of industrial actions. The potential to classify go-slow actions as a form of strike, when peaceful and regulated, would provide workers with a structured, lawful avenue to express grievances, thereby enhancing their bargaining power. Such a reform would balance rights of workers with employer interests ensuring more equitable industrial relations. Looking ahead, the implementation of these reforms could foster better cooperation between workers and employers while safeguarding the rights of both parties.