Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.,- Undaunted by a direction of the State Government under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the U. P. Act, for short), unsuccessfully attacked before a learned single Judge and in appeal from his judgment, the appellant-owner of two sugar factories in Uttar Pradesh - has secured special leave to reach this Court and press before us a few jurisdictional points which, if valid, are deprivatory of the impugned notification under S. 3 (b) of the Act. Before we open the discussion, and, indeed, as paving the way for it, we may remind ourselves of a jural fundamental articulated elegantly in a different context by Mr. Justice Cardozo: *(1)

* (1) Benjamin Nathan Cardozo "What Medicine can do for Law" address before the New York Academy of Medicine, Nov. 1 1928 - Readings in Law and Psychiatry.

"More and more we lawyers are awaking to a perception of the truth that what divides and distracts us in the solution of a legal problem is not so much uncertainty about the law as uncertainty about the facts - the facts which generate the law. Let the facts be known as they are, and the law will sprout from the seed and turn its branches toward the light."

2. Social realities mould social justice and the compulsions of social justice, in the context of given societal conditions, constitute the basic facts from which blossom law which produces order.

3. The search for the social facts behind S. 3 of the U. P. Act takes us to the Objects and Reasons set out therein:

"Following the lapse of Rule 81-A of the Defence of India Rules, the Government of India enacted the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but this Act was found inadequate to deal with the spate of strikes, lock-outs and industrial disputes occurring in the province. Government were, therefore, compelled to promulgate the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1947, as an emergency measure till more comprehensive Legislation on the subject was enacted.

Although more than two years have passed since the termination of the war, normal life is still far from sight. There is a shortage of foodgrains and all other essential commodities and necessities of life. Maximum production is required to relieve the common want and misery. Prices continue to be rising and life has become very difficult for the common man. The loss of every working hour adds to the suffering of the community. In these circumstances, it is essential that Government should have powers for maintaining industrial peace and production and for the speedy and amicable settlement of industrial disputes. The bill, which is similar to the ordinance already in force, provides for such powers." (emphasis added).

4. The immediate concern of the court in this case is with S. 3 which, in its opening part, liminously projects the State control obligated by community well-being. Even here, we may read the relevant part of S. 3 :

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- (emphasis added)

(a) for prohibiting, subject to the provisions of the order, strikes or lock-outs generally, or a strike or lock-out in connection with any industrial dispute;

(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) for appointing committees, representative both of the employer and workmen for securing amity and good relations between the employer and workmen and for settling industrial disputes by conciliation; for consultation and advice on matters relating to production, organisation, welfare and efficiency;

(d) for constitution and functioning of Conciliation Board