R.A.Sharma, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated May 29, 1990, passed by the Government of Bihar under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) referring the dispute regarding the lock-out declared by them in their industry. The impugned order also contains direction under Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 10 requiring the parties to stop strike/lock-out. There is also a challenge to the validity of Sec. 10(3) of the Act. On September 20, 1990, when this writ petition was heard for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement confining this writ petition to that part of the impugned order by which direction has been issued under Sec. 10(3) of the Act. As this writ petition was filed in 1990, we enquired from learned counsel about the present state of affairs as regards the dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. The learned counsel stated that in view of the pendency of this writ petition and the interim order passed by this Court, proceedings before the Labour Court has not been concluded so far.

2. The petitioner No. 1 is a business concern carrying on business of Mica Processing and Fabrication. It has two units in one of which Mica Processing is done and in the other, the processed Mica is silvered and electronic components are manufactured out of it. There was labour problem in one of its units. On February 24, 1989, the workmen of the said unit during the factory hours took out procession, confined officers and staff of the factory and subjected them to inhuman treatment. The petitioner filed a complaint regarding the said acts of the workmen before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. The Sub-Divisional Officer and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Giridih, were also informed about it. The workmen went on strike with effect from February 25, 1989 and the strike continued unabated. The petitioners case is that on account of the continued strike, they suffered heavy loss on account of which they suspended their business with effect from December 4, 1989 till further order say in exercise of power under the Standing Orders. The Government of Bihar thereafter vide order dated May 29, 1989, has passed the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Only the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely. State of Bihar and Under-Secretary. Government of Bihar, Department of Labour Employment Training, Bihar, Patna, respectively, filed counter-affidavit and the petitioners filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. No other respondents filed counter-affidavit in spite of service of notice on them. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has made three submissions, namely, (1) Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 10 being violative of Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India is ultra vires, (ii) the impugned order under Section 10(3) was passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and (iii) the Government has no jurisdiction to pass any such order under Sec. 10(3) of the Act when what is referred is the legality and propriety of the lock-out itself.

5. Sec. 10(3) of the Act is reproduced below:

"10(3) Where an industrial dispute has been referred to a Board, (Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal) under this section, the appropriate Government may by order prohibit the continuance of any strike or lock out in connection with such dispute which may be in existence on the date of the reference."

6. The object of the Act is to provide machinery and forum for investigation and settlement of industrial dispute, maintain peace and harmony and prevent industrial tension. Sec. 10(3) of the Act is one of the provisions which have been enacted to achieve the said object. It does not confer any arbitrary or uncanalised power on the Government. It contains guidelines, namely, to ensure peaceful atmosphere for settlement of industrial disputes. This is a valid provisio