This article examines the statutory regulation of strikes and lockouts in Indian industrial-dispute law, using the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (IDA) as its principal doctrinal framework. It advances the central argument that judicial treatment of “illegal” and “unjustified” strikes, and of employer lockouts, has not been conceptually uniform, creating uncertainty over procedural compliance, proportionality, wage consequences and the permissible limits of collective action. Through a doctrinal analysis of the definitions in sections 2(q) and 2(l), the restrictions in sections 22 and 23 and the illegality rule in section 24, the article assesses the interaction among notice, conciliation, adjudication and industrial action. It engages with Kameshwar Prasad v State of Bihar, Crompton Greaves Ltd v Its Workmen, Tata Iron & Steel Co Ltd v Their Workmen, and related decisions to distinguish statutory illegality from factual justification, scrutinise the legality of lockouts, and evaluate the requirement of proportionate disciplinary responses. A comparative examination of the United Kingdom and the United States identifies the value of clear procedural standards, effective conciliation and protected lawful collective action, while preserving continuity in essential services. The article finds that the IDA’s formal restrictions, ambiguity surrounding employer countermeasures and delay-prone dispute-resolution processes can disproportionately constrain workers, especially when bargaining channels fail. It therefore recommends precise statutory definitions, calibrated notice requirements, strengthened independent conciliation, sector-sensitive continuity arrangements and accessible legal-awareness measures. These proposals seek to reconcile industrial peace with meaningful protection for workers and employers. As the Industrial Relations Code 2020 has subsumed the IDA and is now in force, the article situates the older statute’s jurisprudence as an indispensable interpretative foundation for the contemporary framework. Its contribution lies in offering a structured approach to reconciling legality, justification and proportionality in strike and lockout disputes.