- (1.) I have carefully considered the judgments prepared by my brothers Sapru and Bhargam. On the points on which they are in agreement I have nothing to add. On one point, however, they have differed. Bhargava, J. has held that the order passed by the U. P. Government under Section 3 (b), U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (U. P. Act No. 28 of 1947) about payment of bonus for the years 1947-48 and 1948-49 was invalid as the U. P. Government had no authority to pass an order determining the conditions of service of the workmen with retrospective effect and, in any case, such bonus could be payable only to the workmen who were in service in those years. My brother, Sapru, has, however, taken a different view.
(2.) AS has been pointed out by my brother Bhargava, the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act No, 14 of 1947) deals with settlement of industrial disputes by Conciliation Officers or Boards of conciliation or by Industrial Tribunals, Courts of Inquiry have also been provided for inquiring into any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to an industrial dispute. An industrial dispute can no doubt arise not only with regard to the terms of employment in "praesenti' or in 'futuro' but also in respect of the terms and conditions of service in the past and in the case of an industrial dispute decided under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 (No. 14 of 1947) it may be possible for the requisite authorities to pass an order affecting the terms and conditions of service not only in the present or in future but also in the past.
(3.) THE order in the case before us has, however, been passed by the U. P. Government under the u. P. Industrial Disputes Act (U. P. Act No. 23 of 1947 ). Section 3 of that Act is as follows : "3'power to prevent strikes, lock-outs, etc. ' If in the opinion of the Provincial Government, it is necessary or expedient so to do for securing the public safety or convenience, or the maintenance of public order or supplies and services essential to the life of the community, or for maintaining employment, it may, by general or special order, make provision (a) for prohibiting, subject to the provisions of the order, strikes or lock-outs generally, or a strike or lock-out in connection with any industrial dispute; (b) for requiring employers, workmen or both to observe for such period, as may be specified in the order, such terms and conditions of employment as may be determined in accordance with the order; (c) for appointing industrial courts; (d) for referring any industrial dispute for conciliation or adjudication in the manner provided in the order ; (e) for requiring any public utility service, or any subsidiary undertaking not to close or remain closed and to work or continue to work, on such conditions as may be specified in the order; (f) for exercising control over any public utility service, or any subsidiary undertaking by authorising any person (hereinafter referred to as an authorised controller) to exercise, with respect to such service, undertaking or part thereof such functions of control as may be specified in the order; and, on the making of such order the service undertaking or part, as the case may be shall so long, as the order continues, be carried on in accordance with any directions given by the authorised controller in accordance with the provisions of the order; and every person having any functions of management of such service, undertaking or part thereof shall comply with such directions; (g) for any incidental or supplementary matters, which appear to the Provincial Government necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order; provided that no order made under Clause (b) (I) shall require an employer to observe terms and conditions of employment less favourable to the workmen than those which were applicable to them at any time within three months preceding the date of the order; (II) shall, if an industrial dispute is referred for adjudication under Clause (d) be enforced after the decision of the adjudicating authority is announced by, or with the consent of, the Provincial government. " We are concerned with Clause (b) which empowers the Provincial Government to make provisions for requiring employers, workmen or both to observe for such period as may be specified in the order such terms and conditions of employment as may be determined in accordance with the order, if, in the opinion of the Provincial Government, it is necessary or expedient so to do for securing the public safety or convenience, or the maintenance of public order or supplies and services essential to the life of the community, or for maintaining: employment. The first proviso to Clause (b) lays down that no order shall require an employer to observe terms and conditions of employment less favourable to the workmen than those 'which were applicable to them at any time within three months preceding the date of the order. The whole of this section is intended to empower the Government to pass general or special orders when the passing of such orders becomes necessary for securing the public safety or convenience or the maintenance of public order or supplies. It may be urged that if the workmen claim something for the past years, without which they are not prepared to continue to work in future, and the Government is of the opinion that it is expedient to pass the order for securing the public safety, convenience or the maintenance of public order or supplies and services essential to the life of the community, or for maintaining employment, there is no reason why the government should have no right to pass an order with respect to a period which has already expired and that it should have authority only to control the relationship in the present and the future. The question, however, has to be decided on the language of the section rather than on such general considerations and the language of the section appears to me to indicate that the power given to the Government relates to the present and the future. Where the dispute is as regards any past period, it is open to the Government to have the matter decided either by a Board of Conciliation or by Industrial Tribunals under the Central Act or under Clauses (c) and (d) of Section 3 of the U. P. Act. The orders contemplated under Section 3 (b) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act appear to me to relate to the terms and conditions of service in the present and in the future necessitated by fluctuating economic conditions. To my mind, the error lay in the State Government proceeding under Section 3 (b) instead of referring the matter for decision under the appropriate sections of the Central or the State Act, I, therefore, agree with the order proposed by my brother, Bhargava. Sapru, J.;