R.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus against the State of U.P. and the Officers not to enforce the impugned notification dated August 24, 1985, annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Briefly the facts from which this writ petition has arisen are as follows:
(2.) There was a dispute between the workers of petitioner factory and the petitioner regarding the revision of wages. U.P. Government issued the impugned notification after holding State Labour Tripartite Conference under the Chairmanship of State Law Minister convened at Dehradun on September 19, 1983 for consideration of determination of the wages of the workmen in the petitioner industry. This was necessitated as there was agitation for the increase in the wage at some of the important centres i.e. Dehradun, Allahabad, Faizabad and Agra since 1983. Thereafter under Section 3(b) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Governor issued the impugned notification regarding the basic minimum rates of wages payable to the workers w.e.f. December 1, 1984 to the different categories of workmen engaged in the glass industry (except glass bangles making industry being a category in itself) and the Miniature Bulbs Industry in Uttar Pradesh inclusive of interim relief allowed vide notification No. 7172 (ST)/XXXVI-l-312(ST)-83, dated November 24, 1983 or any other increase given after July 1, 1983 shall be as under and are pegged at 400 points of All India Consumer Price Index Number (Base 1060=100).
(3.) The details of increase and mode of payment has been described in the notification. This notification has been challenged in the writ petition on the ground that there was no emergency to issue this notification, there was no circumstances existing which attracted the issuance of the notification. It is also alleged that the petitioner company has entered into a settlement with their workmen on May 19, 1979 under which a flat increase of Rs. 60/- was given to each workman and as such there was no dispute or industrial unrest in the petitioner company. It is also contended that the petitioner has no financial capacity to pay. The allegations have been controverted in the counter affidavit.;