- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. The petitioner is a sugar factory engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar by vacuum pan process and is aggrieved by the notification dated 15-7-1982 issued by the State Government under Section 3 (b) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act as well as by the reference order issued by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. It transpires that the State Government issued a notification dated 15-7-1982 under Section 3 (b) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act directing the employers not to retrench any worker and instead create a 'surplus pool' of workman and to fill up the vacancies from the 'surplus pool'. The order further contemplated that if, there was no person available in the surplus pool, the vacant post would be offered to the heirs of a retired workman or the heirs of a deceased workman. Based on the aforesaid notification which was valid till 31-12-1983, the Union raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer praying for a settlement of the dispute contending that the heirs of the deceased workman or retired workman should be offered employment in terms of the State Government notification dated 15-7-1982. Upon failure of the conciliation, the State Government referred the dispute for adjudication by issuing a reference under Section 4-K dated 6-4- 1987 for adjudication. The terms of the reference was whether the employers were justified in not giving employment to the heirs of the deceased or to heirs of the retired workers.
(2.) THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid notification, and the adjudication of the dispute before the Labour Court has filed the present writ petition. Inspite of issuance of notice, the Union of the workers has not appeared nor has filed any counter- affidavit. The State Government has also not filed any counter-affidavit controverting the allegations made in the writ petition. Section 3 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act confers power on the State Government to issue a general or special order requiring employers, workmen, or both to observe for such period as may be specified, such terms and conditions of employment as prescribed in the order. This power is required to be exercised by the State Government provided it forms an opinion that it was necessary or expedient to do so for securing public safety or convenience or the maintenance of public order or supplies in services essential to the life of the community or for maintaining employment. For facility, the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the U. P. State Industrial Disputes Act is quoted hereunder : "3. Power to prevent strikes, lock-outs, etc.- 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 - (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;"
(3.) FROM the aforesaid, it is clear that the State Government is vested with extraordinary powers under Section 3 (b) of the Act. The opening words clearly indicates that the provisions contained therein is to be exercised only in the case of emergency which may be acute and in that situation a mere resort to power under Section 4-K of the Act would be inadequate to meet the situation which may be prevailing in the industry. The provision is to enable the State to act promptly in case of emergency in order to secure public safety, convenience or maintenance of public order or services essential to the life of the community or for maintaining employment. In the State of U. P. v. Basti Sugar Mills, AIR 1961 SC 420, the Supreme Court observed that the powers under Section 3 (b) of the Act could only be exercised in case of emergency to meet the situation prevailing in the industry at that time and a mere resort to power under Section 4-K of the Act would be inadequate.;