Senior Counsel KM Vijayan for the petitioners submitted that while the conciliation proceedings are pending before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai and the said authority has also directed the respective parties to maintain status-quo during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings.

"By virtue of Section 22 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act, during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings, no person employed in public utility service shall go on strike in breach of the contract," the senior lawyer argued.

Additional Advocate General (AAG) J Ravindran argued that if the employees/workmen working in the essential public utility service indulge in the strike, particularly, the employees of the electricity board, the whole State will be in darkness.

"The working of the schools and colleges will totally come to a standstill and the damage or injury going to be caused to the public at large cannot be measured and compensated. Therefore, the lawmakers have rightly mandated under Section 22 (1) (d) of the ID Act that during the conciliation proceedings, persons who are negotiating with the management/employer cannot go on strike," the AAG submitted.