Home  /  Industrial Relations Code, 2020  /  Section 90

Section 90: Penalty for giving financial aid to illegal strikes and lock-outs

The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (Act No. 35 of 2020) • Official Statutory Text & Plain English Practice Guide

Statutory Mandate
Chapter XIII: Offences and Penalties
Competent Labour Forum
Act No. 35 of 2020
Section 89 All 104 Sections of Industrial Relations Code, 2020 Section 91

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 90

Section 90 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 imposes a mandatory statutory freeze prohibiting employers from altering conditions of service to the prejudice of workers or discharging/dismissing workers during the pendency of conciliation, arbitration, or tribunal proceedings, safeguarding industrial peace and preventing managerial victimisation.

  • Dispute-Connected Matters (Prior Written Permission): During the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer, or proceedings before an arbitrator or Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, an employer cannot: (a) alter service conditions applicable immediately before commencement of proceedings to the prejudice of workers connected with dispute; or (b) discharge, dismiss, or punish any worker connected with the dispute for misconduct connected with the dispute, save with the express prior written permission of the pending authority.
  • Unconnected Misconduct (Wages + Approval Application): For misconduct not connected with the dispute, the employer may alter service conditions in accordance with standing orders or discharge/dismiss a worker, PROVIDED: (a) one month's wages are paid to the worker; and (b) an application for approval of action taken is simultaneously made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending.
  • Protected Workers Absolute Immunity: Regardless of whether misconduct is connected or unconnected with the dispute, an employer cannot alter conditions of service or discharge/dismiss any 'protected worker' (a recognized trade union office bearer notified as such) without obtaining the express prior written permission of the pending authority.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma (2002) 2 SCC 244: The 5-Judge Constitution Bench held that compliance with Section 33(2)(b) of the IDA (now Section 90(2)) is mandatory; if an employer dismisses a workman without making an approval application or if approval is rejected, the dismissal is void ab initio, and the employee continues in service with full back wages.
  • Strawboard Manufacturing Co. v. Gobind AIR 1962 SC 1500: The Supreme Court held that the three components of Section 33(2)(b)—dismissal of the workman, payment of one month's wages, and filing of the approval application—form part of the same transaction and must be executed simultaneously or on the exact same day.
  • P.D. Sharma v. State Bank of India AIR 1968 SC 985: The Supreme Court ruled that the statutory freeze under Section 33 is enacted to maintain a peaceful atmosphere during conciliation and adjudication and to protect workmen from being victimized for raising an industrial dispute.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Before executing any dismissal, termination, or wage alteration, HR must verify whether any industrial dispute or conciliation proceeding is pending before an Industrial Tribunal or Conciliation Officer. If pending: (1) determine whether the misconduct has any factual nexus with the pending dispute; (2) if unconnected, transfer one full month's wages directly to the worker's bank account on the day of dismissal; (3) file the Section 90 approval application simultaneously on the exact same date; and (4) verify whether the employee is a declared 'protected worker', which mandates prior written permission.

Section 89 All 104 Sections of Industrial Relations Code, 2020 Section 91