Improper use (or threat of improper use) of authority, economic power, physical force, or other such advantage, by a party to compel another to submit to the wishes of its wielder. Agreements entered into, or testaments signed, under coercion are considered illegal and invalid.

1. Instruments of
economic coercion
By- Abhinav Tyagi
15/IMB/004

2. What is coercion?
• Improper use (or threat of improper use) of authority,
economic power, physical force, or other such
advantage, by a party to compel another to submit to
the wishes of its wielder. Agreements entered into, or
testaments signed, under coercion are considered illegal
and invalid.

3. What is Economic coercion?
• Economic coercion is when a controller of a vital resource
uses his advantage to compel a person to do something
he would not do if this resource were not monopolized. If
someone is the owner of the only water supply, then the
owner can compel the thirsty person to pay an
exhorbitant price for that water or have him perform
enormous labor. This is also referred to as a form of
exploitation. It has been argued that as the global
economy has expanded greatly in scope, economic
coercion has replaced other forms of coercion such as
coercion involving physical or military force.

4. Instruments of Economic coercion
• Strikes
• Picketing
• Lockouts

5. Strikes as an instrument of economic coercion
• Strike is one of the oldest and the most effective
weapons of labour in its struggle with capital for
securing economic justice. The basic strength of a strike
lies in the labour’s privilege to quit work and thus brings
a forced readjustment of conditions of employment..
The definition and use of the word ‘strike’ has been
undergoing constant transformation around the basic
concept of stoppage of work or putting off work by
employees in their economic struggle with capital.

6. • Strike has been defined in Section 2 (q) of the Industrial
Disputes Act as under—
“Strike means a cessation of work by a body of persons
employed in any industry acting in combination, or a
concerted refusal, or a refusal under a common
understanding, of any number of persons who are or
have been so employed to continue to work or to accept
employment.”
Strikes as an instrument of economic coercion

7. Essential requirements for the existence of a strike
• There must be cessation of work.The cessation of work must be by a
body of persons employed in any industry;
• The strikers must have been acting in combination;
• The strikers must be working in any establishment which can be
called industry within the meaning of Section 2(j)
• There must be a concerted refusal
• Refusal under a common understanding of any number of persons
who are or have been so employed to continue to work or to accept
employment;
• They must stop work for some demands relating to employment,
non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of
labour of the workmen.

8. • The use of the term “lock-out” to describe employer's
instruments of economic coercion dates back to 1860 and is
younger than its counterparts in the hands of workers, strike by
one hundred years. Formerly the instrument of lock-out was
resorted to by an employer or group of employers to ban union
membership: the employers refused employment to workers
who did not sign a pledge not to belong to trade union. India
witnessed lock-out twenty-five years after the "lock-out" was
known and used in the arena of labour management relations in
industrially advanced countries.
Lockouts as an instrument of economic coercion

9. Definition of lockout
• Section 2(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines “Lock-
out” to mean: The temporary closing of employment or the
suspension of work, or the refusal by an employer to continue to
employ any number of persons employed by him[14]. A
delineation of the nature of this weapon of industrial warfare
requires description of: (i) the acts which constitute it; (ii) the
party who uses it; (iii) the party against whom it is directed; and
(iv) the motive which prompts resort to it.

10. Lock-out, When Legal
• The Act treats strikes and lock-out on the same basis; it treats
one as the counter part of the other. (Mohammed Sumsuddin),
the circumstances under which the legislature has banned strike,
it has also at the Same time banned the lock-out. Thus what
holds good-bad; legal-illegal, justified unjustified for strikes, holds
the same for the lock-out. As such, the provisions of the Act
which prohibit the strike also prohibits the lock-out.

11. Lock-out, When Legal
• The object and reasons for which the Lock-out are banned or
prohibited are the same for which strikes are banned or
prohibited. It is because the Employer and the Employees are not
discriminated in their respective rights in the field of industrial
relationship between the two. A lock-out in consequence of
illegal strike is not deemed to be illegal. But if lock-out is illegal,
Section 26(2), 27 and 28 will come in operation to deal with the
situation. The Act does not lay down any guidelines to settle the
claims arising out of illegal lock-out. The courts, therefore, have
adopted the technique of apportioning the blame between the
Employer and employees.

12. Picketing as an Instruments of Economic coercion
• Industrial action by unionized workers (called pickets)
who either are on, or are trying to gather support for, a
strike by assembling near the entrance to the employer's
premises. Pickets try to persuade (1) coworkers to join
them, (2) workers of other firms (such as delivery men)
to refuse to enter the premises, and (3) customers to
refrain from doing business with their employer. To be
lawful, picketing is usually required to be approved in a
union ballot.

13. Picketing laws in india
• The Constitution of India in Article 19(1) (b) guarantees "the right to
assemble peaceably without arms". The aforesaid right is subject to
reasonable restrictions. These restrictions can be imposed by law
when the sovereignty of India or public order are threatened.
• Sec 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits the State to act when
"immediate prevention or speedy remedy" is desirable. But this can
be done only after the State has provided all the relevant reasons. No
order under this section can remain in force for more then. two
months.

14. Conclusion
• India in the present context of economic development
programmes cannot afford economic coercion . Compulsory
arbitration as an alternative of collective bargaining has come to
stay. The adoption of compulsory arbitration does not, however,
necessarily mean denial of the right to strike or stifling of trade
union movement. If the benefits of legislation, settlements and
awards are to reach the individual worker, not only the trade
union movement has to be encouraged and its outlook
broadened but the laws have also be suitably tailored.

15. THANK YOU