- (1.) M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 22-4-1971 dismissing its petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The appellant runs a textile Mills at Kanpur. By means of a notification dated 14th August 1962. the State Government acting under Section 3 (b) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act had enforced a gratuity scheme applicable to textile mills of Kanpur. Aforesaid notification issued under Section 3 (b) was extended from time to time and ultimately by notification dated 18th September 1971 it was extended for a period of six months. Subsequently on 19-11-1971 the State Government issued vet another notification under Section 3 (b) providing for gratuity payable to the workmen of all the industrial establishment situated within the limits of the Nagar Mahapalikas of Kanpur. Agra. Varanasi and Lucknow as well as those situated within the limits of Meerut, Gorakhpur and Bareillv Municipalities. One Mahabir, a workman employed by the petitioner Company, retired on 16-12-1971. The petitioner offered to pay him gratuity in accordance with the scheme applicable to the textile Mills under notification dated 14-8-1962 issued under Section 3 (b) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and extended from time to time. The workman claimed that he was entitled to receive gratuity under the new Gratuity Scheme applicable to all industrial units situated within the limits of Kanpur Mahapalika as enforced by the notification dated 19-11-1971. As the Company did not accept the claim of the workman the workman made an application under Section 6 (h) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act before the Regional Conciliation Officer, Kanpur. This application was numbered as R. D. Case No. 7 of 1972. The petitioner claims that before passing an order on that application the Regional Conciliation Officer indicated that in his opinion the workman was entitled to gratuity in accordance with the scheme enforced by notification dated 19-11-1971. Accordingly, it filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the notification dated 19-11-1971 and praying that the Regional Conciliation Officer be prohibited from proceeding any further with the R. D. Case No. 7 of 1972. A learned single Judge, by his order dated 22-4-1974. dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed the present appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. V/s. Basti Sugar Mills., 1961 AIR(SC) 420 the power under Section 3 (b) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act had apparently been conferred for the purpose of arming the State Government with additional powers to deal with an emergent situation. It could thus be exercised only if there was some emergency and not otherwise. He pointed out that in paragraph 17 of the petition it had been asserted that there was neither any emergency nor was there any material before the State Government to show that there was labour unrest or danger to the production or supplies on account of the gratuity scheme, which was already in force in petitioner's concern or any other textile mill of Kanpur. Thus there was no material on which the State Government could form an opinion that it was necessary and expedient to make an order under Section 3 (b) of the Act for maintaining supply and industrial peace. Learned counsel urged that in the circumstances, the notification dated 19-11-1971 was invalid and was liable to be quashed.;