Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) The appellant instituted a writ petition to challenge the validity of a notification issued by the State Government on August 17, 1972 under clause (d) of Section 3 of the U. P Industrial Disputes Act. By this notification the State Government sought to fix wages of workmen employed in the bidi industries throughout this State. The writ petition was supported by a large number of grounds. The various grounds in support of the writ petition having failed, the learned Single Judge dismissed them. Hence, the present appeal.
(2.) Several of the grounds urged in support of the appeal have been negatived by a Division Bench of this Court in Ratan Biri Factory v. State of U. P., S.A. No. 5 of 1973. D/d. 29.1.1973 . In view of that decision and in view of our observation that we are bound by that decision, learned counsel for the appellant did not elaborate the points covered by that decision. For the appellant two additional points were urged. It was submitted that there was in existence no circumstance or material relevant for reaching the satisfaction mentioned in clause (b) of Section 3 of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, and especially no such fact was in existence in so far as the Biri Industries of Amroha is concerned. In Ratan Biri Factory's case, the Bench repelled a submission that the condition precedent for making an order under Sec. 3(b) did not exist. It was observed:- "Mr. Jagdish Swarup appearing for the appellants did not seriously challenge the findings on the first point. The impugned notification recites the conditions mentioned in Section 3, viz., that it is in the opinion of the State Government necessary to do for securing the public safety and maintenance of public order and supply and services essential to life of community, and for maintaining employments. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. State Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1961 S.C. 381 the Supreme Court has ruled that where the notification recites the condition precedent the burden is upon the challenger to prove that the recital is on facts incorrect. In the writ petition there was hardly any material upon which this burden could be said to have been discharged by the appellants. On the other hand, from the facts stated in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the workmen of the State Government, it is clear that bidi workmen employed at several places had threatened to go strike from 19th August, 1972 and in the context of the continuing agitation the Government felt that a situation of grave emergency had arisen requiring immediate action. For that reason the impugned notification was issued on 17-8-1972. We have no hesitation in confirming the finding on the first point." The finding was that the condition precedent was in existence in fact. We see no reason to take a different view in the present case.
(3.) It was urged that the fact that the workmen were in agitational mood and had threatened to go on strike, was not relevant, and conditions precedent for making an order under Section 3 did not exist. The conditions are maintenance of essential supply and service and maintenance of employment. When workmen go on strike and are in an agitational mood, it is trite that industrial harmony is disrupted. Maintenance of employment is also put in jeopardy. It cannot he said that the fact that the workers were adopting agitational. methods including strike was not relevant to the conditions mentioned in Sec. 3.;