S. U. Khan, J. - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties including Shri J. N. Tewari, learned senior counsel Shri V. R. Agarwal and Shri Yogesh Agarwal, learned counsel for Management/Industry owners and Shri K. P. Agarwal, learned senior counsel and Shri A. C. Tewari, learned counsel for the workmen.
(2.) THROUGH these two sets of writ petitions two Government orders issued under Section 3 (b) of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 have been challenged. In the first set of writ petitions filed by Management of different Engineering Industries, Government order dated 15.5.2000 has been challenged. THROUGH the said order wage structure for workmen of Engineering Industries has been provided. THROUGH the second set of writ petitions Government order dated 31.1.2000 has been challenged through which wage structure for workmen employed in Hotel and Restaurant Industries has been provided. Section 3 (b) of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act is quoted below : "If, in the opinion of the (State 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) ................. (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) .................... (d) for constitution and functioning of Conciliation Boards for settlement of industrial disputes in the manner specified in the order ; (e) ..................... (f) ...................... (g) .................... Provided that no order may 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. There is no corresponding provision in (Central) Industrial Disputes Act. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that under the aforesaid clause only temporary measures may be taken while fixing wage structure is permanent in nature. The other substantial argument raised was that under Minimum Wages Act, minimum wages have been fixed and over and above that State Government has got no power to issue directions to the employers to pay wages. Some other minor arguments were also raised which have already been decided in Hindustan Industries v. State, 1971 LIC 1154 (op cit). It was also emphatically argued on behalf of the employers-petitioners that there was no material to form the opinion regarding existence of any of the contingencies mentioned in the section and in the impugned orders merely language of section has been reproduced word by word.
(3.) SRI K. P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the workmen has argued that wages are of different kinds including minimum, living and fair. According to the learned counsel Minimum Wages Act deals with minimum wages while impugned Government orders have provided living wages as mentioned in Article 43 of the Constitution. Article 43 of the Constitution is quoted below : "The State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to promote cottage industries on an individual or co-operative basis in rural areas." The provision in question, i.e., Section 3 (b) of U.P.I.D. Act was for the first time considered by a Constitution Bench Authority of the Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. Basti Sugar Mills, AIR 1961 SC 420. Through the said judgment Full Bench Authority of this Court in 1954 All 538 was reversed. At that time Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 had not been passed. State Government while exercising the power under Section 3 (b) of U.P.I.D. Act had directed payment of bonus to the workmen of Sugar Industries. Supreme Court upheld the said Government order. Supreme Court further held that payment of bonus is term or condition of employment. The Supreme Court in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment held that power under clause (b) of Section 3 of U.P.I.D. Act could be exercised in case of emergency. Supreme Court in para 9 further held as follows : "In our opinion where once the Government has acted under clause (b) on the ground that it was in the public interest to do so, it would not be open to the Government to refuse to refer the dispute under clause (d) for conciliation or adjudication.";