Industrial harmony is a precondition for economic productivity, and the manner in which a legal system channels and resolves conflict between capital and labour is accordingly a matter of first-order national importance. Nigeria has, over the past five decades, constructed a multi-tiered statutory framework for the resolution of industrial disputes, anchored in the Trade Disputes Act, the Trade Unions Act, the National Industrial Court Act and, since 2010, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act. That framework contemplates a graduated sequence of dispute-resolution mechanisms (internal negotiation and collective bargaining, mediation, statutory conciliation, arbitration before the Industrial Arbitration Panel, and ultimately adjudication before the National Industrial Court) undergirded by stringent statutory preconditions for the lawful exercise of the right to strike or lockout. This article undertakes a comprehensive doctrinal appraisal of that framework. It traces the statutory and institutional architecture of dispute resolution, situates the regulation of strikes and lock-outs (including the contentious statutory concept of 'essential services') within Nigeria's obligations under core International Labour Organisation Conventions, and critically evaluates the framework's principal strengths and weaknesses in light of decided cases and the accumulated scholarly commentary. The article contends that while the post-2010 constitutional entrenchment of the National Industrial Court has considerably strengthened the adjudicatory limb of the framework, the conciliation-and-arbitration limb inherited from 1976 remains slow, executive-dominated and doctrinally out of step with international best practice, and that the statutory conception of essential services operates, in practice, as a near-total prohibition on the right to strike. The article concludes with concrete recommendations for legislative reform.