- (1.) THE petitioner, Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills, Ltd. , Chitauni, District Deoria, is an incorporated company engaged in the manufacture of sugar at Chitauni in the district of Deoria and Had, amongst its employees, opposite party No, 3, Ram Nath Koeri, during the first quarter of the year 1948. In the month of April, 1948, the services of Ram Nath Koeri were terminated by the petitioner company on the allegation that he had been deliberately absent for a long time without permission and his name was accordingly struck off from the register of employees. Opposite party No. 4, the Chini Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Chitauni, district Deoria, thereupon applied to the regional Conciliation Board (Sugar), Gorakhpur, for the re-instatement of Ram Nath Koeri on 16-6-1948. That application was made under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (U. P. Act 28 of 1947) read with the order of the State Government contained in Notification No. 781 (L)/xviii, dated 10-3-1948. The Board entertained this industrial dispute. The petitioner appeared before the Board and contested the claim of opposite party No. 4 for the re-instatement of opposite party No. 3. On 4-7-1948, the Board passed an order, requiring the Regional Conciliation Officer to make enquiries into the case and to make efforts to bring about reconciliation between the parties. Against this order of 4-7-1948, an appeal was filed by the petitioner to the Industrial Court (Sugar), Lucknow, and that Court, by its order, dated 4-8-1948, set aside the order of the Board, dated 4-7-1948, on a preliminary ground. The State Government, by its order dated 16-9-1948, enforced that order of the Industrial Court (Sugar), Lucknow. Thereafter, in December, 1948, opposite party No. 4, the Chini Mill Mazdoor Sangh, filed another case before the Regional Conciliation Board (Sugar), Gorakhpur, on the same subject of reinstatement of Ram Nath Koeri. The petitioner put in appearance on 15-1-1949, and contested that case. On the same date, the Board passed an order, saying that an application had been received that the Union did not want to pursue that case and, consequently, the parties were to be informed to treat the notices for calling the case to the Board as cancelled. Thereafter, on 22-4-1949, opposite party No. 4 filed one more case before the Regional conciliation Board (Sugar), Gorakhpur, seeking to revive the previous dispute about the re-instatement of Ram Nath Koeri. The petitioner again appeared and contested the case and, on 23-5-1949, the Board once more passed an order, referring the case to the Regional Conciliation officer for decision at the request of opposite party No. 4. On 26-5-1949, the petitioner preferred an appeal against that order of 23-5-1949, before the Industrial Court (Sugar), Lucknow. While this appeal was still pending, opposite party No. 4 filed yet another case with the same request for re-instatement of Ram Nath Koeri opposite party No. 3. That case was dealt with by the Regional Conciliation Board (Sugar), Gorakhpur, itself and, on 6th July, 1949, the Board gave a decision against the petitioner, directing the petitioner to re-instate Ram Nath Koeri and to pay him arrears of salary for the period which elapsed between the order of dismissal and his re-instatement. On 13-7-1949, the petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the industrial Court (Sugar), Lucknow. On this appeal, the findings were given by the Industrial court (Sugar), Lucknow, on 15-9-1949, and the Court sent its recommendations to the government. On 3-12-1949, the Government issued a notification, directing that the findings of the Industrial court (Sugar), Lucknow, be enforced. While all these proceedings were going on, the appeal previously filed by the petitioner against the order of the Board, dated 23-5-1949, was still pending. On that appeal, the findings were given by the Industrial Court (Sugar), Lucknow, on 14-12-1949, and those findings were enforced by the Government by its order, dated 30-12-1949. By the notification of 3-12-1949, mentioned above, the Government had directed the petitioner to comply with the directions given in that order within six months of the notification of that order. Subsequently, it appears that the time for compliance was further extended so that the order was not complied with, at least, upto 17-8-1950, on which date this writ petition for issue of writs under Article 226 of the Constitution was presented on behalf of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to the Industrial Court (Sugar), Lucknow, to produce the whole record of the case relating to the re-instatement of Ram Nath Koeri for the purpose of quashing its order of 15-9-1949, a writ in the nature of mandamus to the U. P. Government, commanding it to forbear from enforcing its order of 3-12-1949, and a writ in the nature of prohibition, forbidding the U. P. Government from enforcing its order of 3-12-1949. The petition has been contested by opposite party No. 1, the U. P. Government, and by opposite party No. 4, the Chini Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Chitauni, district Deoria. Appearance was not put in by opposite party No. 2, Industrial Court (Sugar), lucknow, and opposite party No. 3, Ram Nath Koeri. Though opposite parties Nos. 1 and 4 appeared and contested the case, no counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of either of them, challenging the correctness of the allegations made on behalf of the petitioner. Consequently, the facts given on behalf of the petitioner have to be accepted as correct and the case decided on their basis.
(2.) SHRI Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, wanted to urge, in support of this petition a legal ground that the provisions contained in Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 3, U. P. Industrial disputes Act (U. P. Act No. 28 of 1947) are ultra vires as they contain delegation of essential legislative power to the executive but, on this point, he could not be heard in support of this petition because there are decisions of this Court which are binding on me, holding that Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 3, U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are valid and not ultra vires the legislature. A full Bench of this Court in -- 'basti Sugar Mills Co. , Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh', air 1954 All 538 (A) has held that the provisions of Clause (b), Section 3, U. P. Industrial disputes Act, 1947, are valid and not ultra vires the legislature. Subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court in -- 'british India Corporation Ltd. v. Govt. of the state of Uttar Pradesh', AIR 1954 All 550 (B) has held that cl. (c), Section 3, U. P. Industrial disputes Act, 1947, is valid and not ultra vires. Those decisions of the Full Bench and the division Bench on these two clauses are binding on me and, consequently, the contention of Shri pathak that these provisions of law are ultra vires the legislature nas to be rejected.
(3.) WHEN this petition was heard, two preliminary points were raised by the opposite parties against its being entertained by this Court. One objection was that the petition was belated and, on account of laches on the part of the petitioner, this Court should refuse to issue any writ as prayed by the petitioner. It, however, appears that the order of enforcement, which is being challenged by this writ petition, was passed by the U. P. Government on 3-12-1949. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote successive letters to the Government, making representations against that order and it was only on 21-6-1950, that the Government sent its final reply, refusing the request of the petitioner to reconsider that order. Thereafter, the petitioner took about two months' time to obtain legal advice and prepare the petition. The petition was presented on 17-8-1950. Upto that date, the order had not been carried out and the State Government was still insisting that the petitioner should comply with it. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petition was very much belated and that the delay in filing it would be a sufficient ground to throw it out.;