ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Questions the validity of the notification issued by the State Government on 25th of July. 1969, under clause (b) of Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, directing that all the Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories in the State mentioned in Annexure A thereto, shall pay to all their employees bonus for the year 1967-68. in accordance with the principles mentioned therein. 2. The Basti Sugar Mills Basti the petitioner is a public limited company. It runs two sugar factories one at Basti and the other at Waltergani. Both these factories manufacture sugar by vacuum pan process. They are both mentioned in Annexure A of the impugned notification. 3. The petitioner questions the notification on the principal ground that the amount of allocable surplus mentioned in the notification has been arrived at after adopting a formula for evaluation of closing stock of sugarcane, which was novel and contrary to all settled principles of accountancy. By adopting this method, the allocable surplus of 60% as calculated on the audited profit and loss account of the petitioner factories was increased from Rs. 1,93,075/- to Rupees 4,66,815/- in the case of Basti Sugar Factory and from nil to Rs. 1,76,185/- in respect of petitioner's Waltergani factory. It was urged that the Payment of Bonus Act does not permit departure from the profit and loss account of a company, and so this new formula was contrary to the Statute. It was also urged that the impugned notification was based upon the recommendations of the Tripartite Sugar Committee. The petitioner had filed objections to those recommendations. They were not binding on it: and so the notification is equally not binding on the petitioner. 4. On 16th June. 1968, the State Labour Tripartite Conference (Sugar) consisting of the representatives of the employers, the employees and the State Government, recommended the constitution of a Tripartite Sugar Committee to consider the question of grant of bonus for the season 1967-68 to their workmen by the vacuum pan sugar factories of the State, on the basis of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, subject to such modifications as may be mutually agreed upon. The State Government accordingly issued a notification dated 17th October. 1968 constituting the Tripartite Sugar Committee. The State Government accordingly issued a notification dated 17th October. 1968 constituting the Tripartite Sugar Committee. It consisted of the Labour Commissioner, U.P. as the Chairman and three representatives of the employers and three of the employees. The petitioner is a member of the Indian Sugar Mills Association. which nominated the representatives of the employers on this Committee. The Committee held several meetings. It issued a questionnaire to all the sugar factories in the State requiring them to disclose the method of evaluation of closing stock adopted by them. The petitioner company also submitted a reply. It stated that it had valued closing stock at the market price in the case of levy sugar, and at the cost price ,in the case of free sugar. In answer to question No. 1 of the questionnaire the petitioner company admitted that in 1966-67 they had changed the mode of evaluation. This method of evaluation was also submitted by 20 other mills; while 51 mills had valued their closing stock on the basis of cost or sale price, whichever was lower. At its meeting held on 2nd March. 1969. the Committee constituted a sub-committee to scrutinise the calculations of the closing stock submitted by the individual factories, to hear the parties and to submit their recommendations for consideration of the Committee. The petitioner factory submitted their accounts and calculations. The matter was considered by the Tripartite Sugar Committee at its meeting held on 29th April. 1969 and it was decided to call for further information from the various factories. The petitioner factory also supplied the required information. The minutes of the meeting said that there were only 20 sugar factories whose method of calculation was disputed. The rest of factories had valued their entire closing stock either on cost price or on sale price, which was quite in order, Sri R.P. Nevatia the employer's representative suggested that the cost price of levy sugar and free sugar should be worked out separately on the basis of statutory cane price in respect of levy sugar and statutory cane price plus additional price paid by the mills for the total quantity of cane, in respect of free sugar. That is to say that the total additional cane price over the statutory cane price of the entire cane purchased, should be spread over 40% of the total sugar produced. That is to say that the total additional cane price over the statutory cane price of the entire cane purchased, should be spread over 40% of the total sugar produced. The closing stock of levy sugar and free sugar should be valued separately on the basis of cost price so worked out or selling price, whichever was lower. The representatives of the employees suggested a different basis. The Committee decided that the Secretary should get calculations made on the basis of both the methods mentioned by the parties and should submit the same to the Labour Commissioner. U.P. Thereafter. the representatives of the employees shall examine the calculations and submit the report in the next meeting. Thereafter, the Committee met on 11th May. 1969. It considered the report of the Sub-Committee as well as the information and calculations received by the Secretary- The Committee unanimously resolved that the closing stock of these factories be valued for the purpose of calculation of bonus only as follows: "The cost price of levy sugar and free sugar should be worked out separately on the basis of statutory cane price in respect of levy sugar and statutory cane price plus additional cane price paid by the mills for the total quantity of the cane in respect of the free sugar. That is to say the total additional cane price over the statutory cane price on the entire cane purchased. should be spread over 40% of the total sugar produced. The closing stock of levy sugar and free sugar should be valued separately on the basis of cost price so worked out or selling price whichever was lower". It will thus be seen that the Committee unanimously accepted the recommendations made on behalf of the employers representative as to the method of valuing the closing stock. This was done after considerable debate and after hearing the parties, including the petitioner. 5. The petitioner company is a member of the Indian Sugar Mills Association. It is not the petitioner's case that this Association is not entitled to represent its member sugar industries, including the petitioner, in relation to matters concerning its members. The sugar mills representative himself suggested method of valuing the closing stock and this suggestion was unanimously accepted by the Committee. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner is not a willing party to the recommendations of the Committee. The sugar mills representative himself suggested method of valuing the closing stock and this suggestion was unanimously accepted by the Committee. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner is not a willing party to the recommendations of the Committee. When the petitioner's representative was on the Committee and he agreed to this method of evaluation, it will be deemed that the petitioner had also agreed to it. even though it had made objections before the Committee. The final decision of the Committee would be equally binding on the petitioner. 6. Section 23 of the Payment of Bonus Act. 1965. provides that where during the course of proceedings before any arbitrator or tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act the profit and loss account of an employer, being a corporation or a company, duly audited is produced before it, then the said authority may presume the particulars contained in such profit and loss account to be accurate and it shall not be necessary for the Company to prove the accuracy of such particulars. But this provision has a proviso which says that if the said authority is satisfied that the particulars contained in the profit and loss account of the corporation or the company are not accurate it may take such steps as it thinks necessary to find out the accuracy of such particulars. This provision will not apply. It applies to proceedings before any arbitrator or tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act to investigate and settle industrial disputes. The Committee was not constituted to settle any industrial dispute. It was neither an arbitrator nor a tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. Further. Section 23 is designed to authorise the drawing up of a presumption of the accuracy of the particulars given in the profit and loss account. It does not give any authenticity to the method of accounting adopted by a particular company, while drawing up its profit and loss account. The Tripartite Sugar Committee did not challenge the accuracy of the figures and particulars given in the profit and loss account, but has varied the principles to be adopted in evaluation of closing stock. This aspect is. in my opinion, outside the purview of Section 23. 7. The Tripartite Sugar Committee did not challenge the accuracy of the figures and particulars given in the profit and loss account, but has varied the principles to be adopted in evaluation of closing stock. This aspect is. in my opinion, outside the purview of Section 23. 7. Section 34 (3) of the Payment of Bonus Act provides that nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to preclude the employees employed in any establishment or class of establishments from entering into an agreement with their employer for granting them an amount of bonus under a formula which is different from that under the Act. Thus, the employer and the employees in the sugar industry could have agreed to constitute the committee to determine the bonus payable and to adopt a formula different than the one given in the Act. So even if it be supposed though this has not been established that the formula of evaluation of closing stock adpoted by the committee was at variance with the formula contemplated by the Act. still it would be valid. 8. It was urged that the principle adopted by the Committee in valuing the closing stock was contrary to all settled principles of accountancy. Mv attention was not invited to any book of accountancy to show that the settled principles in this regard are different. It was argued that the Committee adopted a method which was contrary to the settled principles obtaining in the petitioner factory. The petitioner company in its reply to the questionnaire issued by the Committee itself stated that it had changed the mode of valuation of closing stock since 1966-67. That would show that there is no well established practice of long standing. 9. The impugned notification has been issued under clause (b) of Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is a statutory notification and has the force of law. Under this provision, the State Government is authorised to lav down the terms and conditions of service which the employer and the employees are bound to observe for the stated period. Even though the notification may be based upon the recommendations of the Tripartite Sugar Committee, yet since it was within the powers of the State Government to lay down the conditions of service in respect of bonus, it operates its own force, irrespective of the validity of the recommendations of the Committee. Even though the notification may be based upon the recommendations of the Tripartite Sugar Committee, yet since it was within the powers of the State Government to lay down the conditions of service in respect of bonus, it operates its own force, irrespective of the validity of the recommendations of the Committee. This statutory notification cannot be struck down on the basis that the petitioner company was not agreeable to the method of valuing the closing stock, so long as the method of such valuation adopted by the State Government was not contrary to any law. For all these reasons the petition has. in my opinion, no merits. 10. In the result. the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.