The right of the employer to deny employment to existing workmen is not absolute. There should be a prima facie case supported by concrete evidence and bona fide reasons. Suspension of operation, though the term is not found in any Labour Law to my limited knowledge, actually means temporary denial of employment as well as wages, invoking a breach of the contract of employment. Therefore, you cannot expect a statutory administrative authority like the State/Central Labour Department to approve such a counter-action by the employer. Ordinarily, strike and lock-out are acts of breach of the contract of employment by the workmen and the employer, respectively. When it is resorted to by the workmen or a lock-out declared by the employer in contravention of the provisions of sections 22 or 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is illegal as per sec. 24(1)(i) of the Act. However, there is a deeming provision in sec 24(3) that a lock-out declared in consequence of an illegal strike or a strike declared in consequence of an illegal lock-out shall not be deemed illegal.
There is no mention of whether the so-called illegal stay-in-strike is by all the workmen or a section of workmen. Suspension of operation can be total only, whereas a lock-out can be partial. So, be cautious. Better ascertain the actual reasons for the stay-in-strike, and if they are justifiable and reasonable, try to set things right forthwith, simultaneously convincing the striking people that there would be no wages for the period of the illegal strike.
Regards