Section 10(3) limits prohibition orders to strikes or lockouts linked to a referred dispute; writ relief may quash unauthorized compulsion.

Section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act permits prohibition of a strike or lockout only when it is connected with a dispute already referred for adjudication. An order compelling a mill to continue operations could not be sustained where the stoppage was treated as a closure driven by losses rather than a strike or lockout ancillary to another dispute. The commentary also notes that an administrative order made without statutory authority may be challenged under Article 226, and that corporate bodies may invoke fundamental rights where the right claimed permits. The industrial reference itself was not invalidated and was left for adjudication on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Government's order directing the mill to continue operations during the pendency of the industrial reference was within the scope of Section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; (ii) whether the petitioner could obtain writ relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against that order on the ground of infringement of fundamental rights.

Issue (i): whether the Government's order directing the mill to continue operations during the pendency of the industrial reference was within the scope of Section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: Section 10(3) permits prohibition of the continuance of a strike or lockout only where such strike or lockout is in connection with a dispute referred for adjudication. A strike or lockout which is itself the subject-matter of the dispute is not a strike or lockout in connection with some other dispute within the meaning of the provision. The Court held that the reference could proceed, but the prohibitory order compelling continued working could not be sustained if the stoppage was a closure motivated by losses and not a strike or lockout ancillary to another dispute.

Conclusion: The order under Section 10(3) was held to be beyond the scope of the Act and illegal.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner could obtain writ relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against that order on the ground of infringement of fundamental rights.

Analysis: The Court held that an administrative order made without authority of law may be corrected by writ, and that corporate bodies may invoke fundamental rights where the nature of the right permits. It further held that forcing the petitioner to run the mills despite a prima facie apprehension of heavy losses would amount to an unreasonable interference with the right to carry on business and an illegal deprivation of property. The Court, however, found no basis to invalidate the industrial reference itself, which was left to be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal.

Conclusion: Writ relief was granted against the operating order, but the challenge to the reference was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded only to the extent of securing quashing of the direction requiring continued operation of the mills, while the industrial reference was allowed to stand for adjudication on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 10(3) authorises prohibition only of a strike or lockout that is in connection with a referred dispute, and an order compelling continued operation is liable to be quashed under Article 226 when made without statutory authority and in unreasonable infringement of fundamental rights.

---