JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The appellant instituted a writ petition to challenge the validity of a notification issued by the State Government on August 17, 1972 under clause (d) of Section 3 of the U. P Industrial Disputes Act. By this notification the State Government sought to fix wages of workmen employed in the bidi industries throughout this State. The writ petition was supported by a large number of grounds. The various grounds in support of the writ petition having failed, the learned Single Judge dismissed them. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Several of the grounds urged in support of the appeal have been negatived by a Division Bench of this Court in Ratan Biri Factory v. State of U. P., S.A. No. 5 of 1973. D/d. 29.1.1973. In view of that decision and in view of our observation that we are bound by that decision, learned counsel for the appellant did not elaborate the points covered by that decision. For the appellant two additional points were urged. It was submitted that there was in existence no circumstance or material relevant for reaching the satisfaction mentioned in clause (b) of Section 3 of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, and especially no such fact was in existence in so far as the Biri Industries of Amroha is concerned. In Ratan Biri Factory's case, the Bench repelled a submission that the condition precedent for making an order under Sec. 3(b) did not exist. It was observed:- "Mr. Jagdish Swarup appearing for the appellants did not seriously challenge the findings on the first point. The impugned notification recites the conditions mentioned in Section 3, viz., that it is in the opinion of the State Government necessary to do for securing the public safety and maintenance of public order and supply and services essential to life of community, and for maintaining employments. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. State Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1961 S.C. 381 the Supreme Court has ruled that where the notification recites the condition precedent the burden is upon the challenger to prove that the recital is on facts incorrect. In the writ petition there was hardly any material upon which this burden could be said to have been discharged by the appellants. Ltd. v. State Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1961 S.C. 381 the Supreme Court has ruled that where the notification recites the condition precedent the burden is upon the challenger to prove that the recital is on facts incorrect. In the writ petition there was hardly any material upon which this burden could be said to have been discharged by the appellants. On the other hand, from the facts stated in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the workmen of the State Government, it is clear that bidi workmen employed at several places had threatened to go strike from 19th August, 1972 and in the context of the continuing agitation the Government felt that a situation of grave emergency had arisen requiring immediate action. For that reason the impugned notification was issued on 17-8-1972. We have no hesitation in confirming the finding on the first point." The finding was that the condition precedent was in existence in fact. We see no reason to take a different view in the present case. 3. It was urged that the fact that the workmen were in agitational mood and had threatened to go on strike, was not relevant, and conditions precedent for making an order under Section 3 did not exist. The conditions are maintenance of essential supply and service and maintenance of employment. When workmen go on strike and are in an agitational mood, it is trite that industrial harmony is disrupted. Maintenance of employment is also put in jeopardy. It cannot he said that the fact that the workers were adopting agitational. methods including strike was not relevant to the conditions mentioned in Sec. 3. 4. It was then urged that the Biri Industries at Amroha did not suffer from any such situation. The learned Single Judge in our opinion was justified in refusing to entertain this plea because no such plea had been raised in the writ petition. There is no averment in the writ petition that the conditions in the Biri Industries at Amroha were peaceful and cordial. Reliance was placed upon allegations in the rejoinder affidavit to that effect. Those allegations have not been made even in the rejoinder affidavit with a view to bring out the point now sought to be argued that the condition precedent was missing so far as Amroha is concerned. Further, the notification has been passed, so as to be effective through the State. Those allegations have not been made even in the rejoinder affidavit with a view to bring out the point now sought to be argued that the condition precedent was missing so far as Amroha is concerned. Further, the notification has been passed, so as to be effective through the State. It was not necessary that the conditions which led the State Government to form the requisite opinion should have been in existence in every town where Biri was manufactured, or every unit which manufactured biri. If the State Government was satisfied that generally a situation had arisen requiring immediate action so that appropriate wages may be fixed for the workmen employed in the bidi industries in general, the notification was, in our opinion, competent and valid. The mere fact that in a particular town the workmen had not adopted agitational methods will not detract from the exercise of the power. 5. For the appellant reliance was placed upon certain allegations in the counter affidavit to the effect that biri workers at Amroha were also agitating, but in April 1972 some settlement had been reached between the workmen and some of the employers. Some other employers had not agreed to the settlement. Those averments are made in the counter affidavit in a completely different context to meet other points. Even in the counter affidavit nothing has been said as to what transpired between April and August 1972 when the notification was actually issued. There is no material to show that the same peaceful conditions continued till the time the notification was issued. In any event, these are to our mind irrelevant aspects. When the State Government was satisfied that conditions did exist requiring immediate action in several places of the State, the exercise of the power was valid. 6. In the next place it was urged that since no permanent solution of the dispute was in sight, the power under Sec. 3(b) could not have been utilised. We had some difficulty in following this submission. In support the learned counsel placed reliance upon State of U. P. v. Prem Spinning and Weaving Mills Co., 1973 A.L.J. 65. There it was held that the power under clause (b) of Section 3 is exercisable only as a temporary measure to tide over an acute emergency. We had some difficulty in following this submission. In support the learned counsel placed reliance upon State of U. P. v. Prem Spinning and Weaving Mills Co., 1973 A.L.J. 65. There it was held that the power under clause (b) of Section 3 is exercisable only as a temporary measure to tide over an acute emergency. It cannot be used as an alternative to the powder to refer for adjudication an existing industrial dispute, much less to resolve the industrial dispute unilaterally. In order to exercise power under clause (b) of Section 3 it is not necessary that the State Government must have in view a permanent solution of the industrial dispute if any. The power is exercised to tide over an emergent situation. The power can validly be exercised even though the action under clause (b) of Section 3 may result in the solution of the industrial dispute for the time being. We see no merit in this point. 7. No other point was urged. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.