JUDGMENT B.M. Lal and S.N. Saxena, JJ.
1. Heard Shri S.K. Mishra for the petitioner and Shri P.P. Srivastava for the respondent on the question of admission.
2. This judgment shall also dispose of Writ Petition No. 22895 of 1987, 15060, 24959, 2496 land 24962 of 1989.
3. By this petition, the impugned Notification dated July 16, 1982 (Annexure I) issued under Section 3(b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is challenged inter alia on the ground that the Notification is discriminatory in nature and violates the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
4. The learned counsel submits that the provisions of the Notification providing employment to the heirs of the retired workmen are contrary not only to the provisions of the Standing Orders issued from time to time but also to the settled principles of the industrial jurisprudence.
5. While going through the Notification and considering the provisions, it is clear that this Notification has been issued for securing public safety and convenience and maintenance of public order and supplies and service essential to the life of the community and for maintaining employment.
6. The argument raised by the learned counsel that the Notification is discriminatory in nature and contradictory to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution has no force.
7. Under Section 3 (b) of the Act the Notification issued by the State Government does not suffer from any vice and is not contradictory to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. We may here point out that the Act is a legislation enacted to ensure social justice both to the employers and the employees. With this object in mind if the impugned Notification is enforced the same will improve the service conditions of the industrial labourers who are the back - bones of our industry.
9. At this stage we may not lose sight of the fact that to improve the service conditions of the industrial labourers so as to provide them minimum ostensible means of subsistence is the main object of the Notification as it is felt by the State Government that after retrenchment or removal of an industrial labourer new recruitment is made by the industry ignoring the experience of the labourer who for one reason or the other popularly known as a surplus employee is retrenched. Therefore, the Notification appears to have been issued to improve or ensure the cause of social justice to the labourer class as a whole and thus the doctrine of social justice which is founded on basic ideals of socio-economic equalities has been given predominant consideration by issuing this Notification.
10. As far as the argument that the Notification is discriminatory in nature and violating the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is concerned, we may point out that Article 14 applies to only similarly situated discriminated persons as Article 14 secures equal treatment to the class or community belonging to one and the same. Thus Article 14 speaks of the equality before law meaning thereby it protects the labourer class as a whole belonging to the sugar industries in the context of the impugned notification and if this equality before law amongst the labourer class as a whole of sugar industry is discriminated in any manner whatsoever then certainly the Notification will be violative of Article 14 but the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notification is not made applicable to other industries except sugar industries and, therefore, it is discriminatory. This submission has no substance inasmuch as equal treatment is to be given to the equals. Herein the labourer class of the sugar industries as a whole is equal and, therefore, there is no discrimination and thus Article 16 of the Constitution has also no application to the instant case.
11. Thus, in our opinion, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no substance.
12. The petition, therefore, is dismissed being devoid of merits. The stay order dated December 22, 1989 stands vacated.