JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. 1. THE State of Uttar Pradesh set up a committee under Notification No. 6275 (ST) XXXVI-1-197 (ST) 69, dated 29 November 1971, to consider, inter alia, matters relating to wages and bonus of the workmen employed in the distilleries and breweries of the State and to submit its report to the Government. The committee submitted its interim report in 1972. Thereupon, the State Government issued a notification, dated 9 August 1972, under S. 3 (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act directing the employers of the distilleries and breweries to pay a sum of Rs. 32.20 per month per workman to all the workmen employed by them. The notification was published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary, dated 10 August 1972. The order was to remain in force for a period of one year or till the implementation of the final report of the committee whichever was earlier. 2. MOHAN Goldwater Breweries, Ltd., challenged the validity of the Government order, dated 9 August 1972, by means of the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It further obtained an interim order as a result of which it did not comply with the directions contained in the Government order, dated 9 August 1972. Since the committee as constituted by the Government could not submit its report within one year, the Government order, dated 9 August 1972, ceased to remain in force after the stipulated period of one year. It appears that the committee submitted its final recommendations to the Government in January 1974. Consequently the State Government issued another order on 7 January 1974, tinder S. 3 (b) of the Uttar Pradesh industrial Disputes Act implementing the recommendations of the committee. The order directed the employers of the distilleries and breweries in the State to pay wages and allowances to the workmen in accordance with the rates prescribed in the order. The order further directed the employers to carry out the scheme of fitment of workmen in accordance with the principles laid down in the order. Clause 5 of the order stated that the payment shall be made to the workmen in accordance with the scales of pay and dearness allowance specified in the order which shall be calculated with effect from 1 August 1972. Clause 6 of the order stated that where the workmen have been given an ad hoc increase of Rs. Clause 5 of the order stated that the payment shall be made to the workmen in accordance with the scales of pay and dearness allowance specified in the order which shall be calculated with effect from 1 August 1972. Clause 6 of the order stated that where the workmen have been given an ad hoc increase of Rs. 32.20 only in their total wages within the period of 21 November 1971 to 8 August 1972, i.e., where an ad hoc increase similar to the ad hoc increase in wages as provided in Government notification, dated 9 August 1972, had already been given the notification, dated 9 August 1972, shall be deemed to have been implemented from the date, such ad hoc increase was earlier given. Clause 7 of the order laid down that an ad hoc increase given vide Government notification, dated 9 August 1972, or any other increase in wages given during August 1972, under any settlement between the employer and their workmen or union, shall be adjustable against wages fixed under this order. Clause 9 directed that the order shall come into force with immediate effect and shall remain in operation for a period of three years. Thus the order required the employers of the distilleries and breweries of the State to observe conditions of service including payment of wages, dearness allowance and other matters as laid down in the order for a period of three years. Though the Government order, dated 9 August 1972, had ceased to remain in force on the expiry of one year but in view of the directions contained in the Government order, dated 7 January 1974. the employers were directed to give an ad hoc increase of Rs. 32.20 in wages to the workmen with effect from 1 August 1972. On the expiry of the period of three years, the State Government issued another order on 7 January 1977, extending the period of operation of the order, dated 7 January 1974, for one year more. The petitioner took steps to get the petition amended challenging the validity of the aforesaid two Government orders, dated 7 January 1974 and 7 January 1977. The petitioner is engaged in the business of production of beer at its factory situated at Lucknow. It has about 300 workmen in its employment. The petitioner took steps to get the petition amended challenging the validity of the aforesaid two Government orders, dated 7 January 1974 and 7 January 1977. The petitioner is engaged in the business of production of beer at its factory situated at Lucknow. It has about 300 workmen in its employment. The petitioner has asserted that there was complete industrial peace among the workmen of the breweries in the State and there was no demand raised by the workmen of the petitioner-factory in respect of wages or other conditions of service. On these allegations learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the State Government exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notification as there was on acute emergency rather any emergency or unrest among the workmen of the breweries and distilleries of the State and spec ally among the workmen of the petitioner-factory to justify the exercise of power under S. 3 (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the absence of any grave emergency the State Government had no jurisdiction to lay down terms under conditions of employment of the workmen under S. 3 (b) of the Act. He assailed the notification on other grounds, namely, that the tripartite committee constituted by the notification, dated 29 November 1971, had no representative of the breweries and the State Government had no material before it to form opinion that the workmen employed in the brewery industry and the workmen of the petitioner-factory were dissatisfied with the wages paid to them. The petitioner-company was not given any opportunity to place its view point before the committee or the State Government It acted arbitrarily in extending the life of the notification and imposing conditions of employment which were to the detriment of the petitioner- company. Lastly, he urged that beer which is manufactured by the breweries is not a commodity essential to the life of the community and as such the State Government had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notifications. 3. SECTION 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, confers power on the State Government to issue general or special order requiring employers, workmen, or both to observe for such period as may be specified in the order, such terms and conditions of employment as prescribed in the order. 3. SECTION 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, confers power on the State Government to issue general or special order requiring employers, workmen, or both to observe for such period as may be specified in the order, such terms and conditions of employment as prescribed in the order. This power is to be exercised if the State Government forms opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so for securing public safety or convenience or the maintenance of public or order supplies in services essential to the life of the community or for maintaining employment. SECTION 4K confers power on the State Government to refer an industrial dispute to a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for adjudication which may also be in respect of any of the matters contemplated by S. 3 (b) of the Act. Adjudication by Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals generally consumes time while in some cases a situation may arise necessitating immediate action to maintain the supplies in services essential to the life of the community or for maintaining employment or for securing public safety and convenience or maintenance of public order. In order to meet this kind of exigency the State Government is vested with extraordinary powers under S. 3 (b) of the Act. The opening words of S. 3 indicate that the provisions contained therein are to be availed of in emergency, which may be acute and in that situation a mere resort to power under S. 4K of the Act may be inadequate to meet the situation which may be prevailing in the industry. The state of emergency may be such that the Government may have to act promptly for securing public safety, convenience or maintenance of public order or services essential to the life of the community or for maintaining employment. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Basti Sugar Mills [A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 420], the Supreme Court while considering the nature and extent of power conferred on the State Government under S. 3 (b) of the Act observed that the provisions of S. 3 are to be availed of in an emergency. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Basti Sugar Mills [A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 420], the Supreme Court while considering the nature and extent of power conferred on the State Government under S. 3 (b) of the Act observed that the provisions of S. 3 are to be availed of in an emergency. The Supreme Court further observed that even though it was true that even a reference to the arbitrator or conciliator was necessary when there was an emergency but then the emergency may be acute and such emergency may necessitate the exercise of power under S. 3 (b) to meet the particular situation and a mere resort to adjudication of industrial dispute may not be sufficient. Thus, it is settled that the State Government can exercise powers conferred on it by S. 3 (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act only as a temporary measure, in cases of acute emergency where mere resort to power to refer any dispute to adjudication may be inadequate to meet the situation. If these two conditions are not satisfied any order issued under S. 3 (b) of the Act would be void. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Spinning and Weaving Mills Company [19731 L.L.N. 149], expressed similar opinion. 4. THE conditions precedent for the issue of an order under S. 3 (b) need not be recited in the order itself, and if any challenge is made to the order it is open to the State Government to prove the existence of the conditions precedent by means of an affidavit or other evidence aliunde. But if the order under S. 3(b) recites the conditions precedent, a heavy burden lies on the petitioner who challenges the validity of that order. In that event the burden to show that the conditions precedent did not exist or the necessary opinion was not formed, or that there has been no compliance with the conditions precedent of S. 3(b) falls on the petitioner as held in Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. State Industrial Tribunal [A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1381]. The validity of the impugned notifications is to be adjudged on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The validity of the impugned notifications is to be adjudged on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The initial order of the Government was issued under S. 3(b) on 9 August 1972, in the following terms: "Whereas a committee was set up and appointed by the State Government vide Government Notification No. 6275 (ST)/ XXXVI-1-187 (ST) 69, dated 29 November 1971, as amended by Notification No. 536 (ST)/XXXVI-1-187 (ST)/69, dated 18 May 1972, to consider, inter alia, the matters relating to wages and bonus, etc., of the workmen employed in distillery industry and breweries in the State: And whereas the majority of the members of the said committee have submitted recommendations for an ad hoc increase in the pay of the workmen employed in the distillery industry and breweries: And whereas in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary so to do for securing the public safety and maintenance of public order and supplies and services essential to the life of the community and for maintaining employment: Now, therefore, in exercise of powers under CI. (b) of S. 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Uttar Pradesh Act 28 of 1947), the Governor is pleased to make the following order and to direct with reference to S.19 of the said Act that notice of the order shall be given by publication in the gazette. ORDER (1) An ad hoc payment of Rs. 32.20 (rupees thirty-two and paise twenty) per month per workman shall be made to their workmen with immediate effect by all the distillery industry and breweries in the State. (2) This order shall come into force with effect from the date of its publication in the gazette and shall remain in force for a period of one year or till the implementation of final report whichever is earlier." A perusal of the above order shows that on the report of the majority of members of the tripartite committee making recommendation for ad hoc increase in the distillery industry and breweries, the State Government formed opinion that it was necessary for securing public safety and maintenance of public order and supplies and services essential to the life of the community and for maintaining employment to make an order directing the distilleries and breweries of the State to make an ad hoc payment of Rs. 32.20 per month per workman to all the workmen. 32.20 per month per workman to all the workmen. The order was directed to remain in force for a period of one year or till the implementation of the final report, whichever was earlier. 5. THE preamble to the Government order, dated 7 January 1974, was in the following terms: "Whereas a committee was constituted by the State Government vide Government Notification No. 6275 (ST) XXXVI-1-187 (ST)-69, dated 29 November 1971, as amended by Government Notification No. 536 (ST)/XXXV1-1-187 (ST)-69, dated 13 February 1972 and No. 3692 (ST)/ XXXVI-1-187 (ST)-69, dated 18 May 1972, to consider certain matters relating to the workmen employ d in distillery industry and breweries in the State. And whereas, the said committee has submitted its recommendations in respect of revision of the basic pay and dearness allowance. And whereas, in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary so to do for securing the public safety and maintenance of public order and services essential to the life of the community and for maintaining employment; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers under CI. (b) of S. 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Uttar Pradesh Act 28 of 1947), the Governor is pleased to make the following order and to direct with reference to S. 19 of the said Act that notice of the order shall be given by publication in the gazette." A perusal of the above order shows that the State Government was of the opinion that it was necessary for securing public safety and maintenance of public order and services essential to the life of the community and for maintaining employment to exercise powers under S. 3(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the directions contained in the order were issued. The Government order, dated 7 January 1977, which extended the life of the Government order, dated 7 January 1974, for a period of another year stated that since the recommendations of the committee had not been implemented in full the State Government was of the opinion that in order to maintain public order and services essential to the life of the community and maintenance of employment it was necessary to extend the period of the notification, dated 7 January 1974, for a period of one year more. 6. IN all the aforesaid three impugned Government orders, the expressions contained in CI. 6. IN all the aforesaid three impugned Government orders, the expressions contained in CI. (b) of S. 3 of the Act have been mechanically recited. The orders, however, do not contain any statement that there was any emergency, much less any acute emergency necessitating immediate action by the State Government under S. 3(b) of the Act. Absence of this recital in the order would not invalidate the order and its validity can be upheld if on the material placed before the Court it is found that a grave situation existed and an acute emergency prevailed as a result of which immediate action under S. 3(b) was necessary. The petitioner has asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that no emergency or acute emergency existed and there was complete peace and harmony among the employees of the petitioner-factory and its workmen and there was no necessity for the issue of the impugned order as there was no industrial unrest even in other breweries of the State. The petitioner has further asserted that there was no material before the State Government to form the requisite opinion that any acute emergency or emergency existed in the State to warrant the exercise of extraordinary power under S. 3(b) of the Act. On behalf of the State Government, an affidavit has been filed by Sri J.S.P. Pandey, Conciliation Officer, Allahabad. It is a matter of regret that a Conciliation Officer who had no occasion to deal with the Secretariat file or be associated with the formation of opinion by the State Government, should have filed this affidavit on behalf of the State Government. Time and again this Court has emphasized the necessity of filing an affidavit by a responsible officer of the State, namely, the secretary of the department concerned, specially so, where validity of a statutory order issued by the State Government is under challenge on the grounds as raised in the present petition. In his affidavit, Sri J.S.P. Pandey has asserted that on the report of the tripartite committee constituted under notification, dated 29 November 1971, the State Government considered it necessary to issue the impugned order under S. 3(b) of the Act for granting relief to the workmen. In his affidavit, Sri J.S.P. Pandey has asserted that on the report of the tripartite committee constituted under notification, dated 29 November 1971, the State Government considered it necessary to issue the impugned order under S. 3(b) of the Act for granting relief to the workmen. He has further stated that the order, dated 9 August 1972, was issued after taking into account all the relevant material and the conditions precedent have been recited in the order itself. The affidavit of Sri J.S.P. Pandey does not refer or disclose any circumstances which would show that any acute emergency or emergency existed which may have necessitated the exercise of power under S. 2 (b) of the Act. The petitioner's allegation that there was no emergency or acute emergency justifying the exercise of the extraordinary power under S. 3(b) thus remains uncontroverted. No material was placed before the Court even during the course of hearing on behalf of the State to show that any acute emergency or emergency existed on the basis of which the State Government formed the requisite opinion to issue the impugned order. In the absence of any material placed before the Court, that any acute emergency or emergency existed which necessitated the exercise of power under S. 3(b) of the Act, the impugned notifications are rendered void on the principles laid down in Basti Sugar Mill case [A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 420] (vide supra) and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Spinning and Weaving Mills Company [1973I L.L.N. 149] (vide supra). 7. SINCE the notification, dated 9 August 1972, and the notification, dated 7 January 1974, are illegal for the reasons recorded above, any extension by the Government order, dated 7 January 1977, is also vitiated. SINCE the initial exercise of power under S. 3(b) of the Act was vitiated on account of the absence of acute emergency or emergency, the extension of the notification, dated 7 January 1974, could be justified only if the acute emergency continued to exist. If no grave situation continued to exist and if there was industrial peace and there was no unrest among the workmen employed in the breweries the State Government had no jurisdiction to extend the life of the Government order, dated 7 January 1974, for a period of another one year. 8. If no grave situation continued to exist and if there was industrial peace and there was no unrest among the workmen employed in the breweries the State Government had no jurisdiction to extend the life of the Government order, dated 7 January 1974, for a period of another one year. 8. IN the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner impugning the aforesaid two notifications the petitioner has again raised the question that no emergency or acute emergency existed for the continuance of the order or for extending the life of the impugned notification. The State Government has again failed to place any material before us by means of affidavit or otherwise to show that grave situation existed, which necessitated the continuance of the order or for extending its period. Since the initial notification is void, subsequent continuance of the order would also be void as the State Government has faiied to show that any acute emergency existed necessitating the exercise of the extraordinary powers under S. 3(b) of Act. The Supreme Court in Basti Sugar Mills case [A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 420] (vide supra), expressly laid down that the power under S. 3 (b) could be exercised only as a temporary measure, this power- cannot be substituted for adjudication of industrial disputes. An order under S. 3(6) can be issued as a temporary measure for a limited period of time, this power cannot be used to prescribe conditions of service for six years. In the instant case, the initial notification was issued in 1972 and by subsequent notifications the conditions of employment in matters relating to salaries and wages of the workmen employed in breweries have been regulated continuously for a period of six years by means of the impugned notifications. This is not permissible under the law. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Spinning and Weaving Mills Conpany [1973 -I L.L N. 149] (vide supra), a Division Bench of this Court struck down State Government's order issued under S. 3 (b) which was extended from time to time for a period of eleven years. On the principles laid down in that case the continuance of the impugned order, dated 9 August 1972, for a period of six years is void. On the principles laid down in that case the continuance of the impugned order, dated 9 August 1972, for a period of six years is void. Learned standing counsel contended that if the petitioner-company is aggrieved by the conditions prescribed by the impugned notifications, it has an alternative remedy of raising an industrial dispute, by making a request to the State Government to refer the dispute under S. 4K of the Act for adjudication and this Court should not grant any relief to it in the present proceedings. We find no merit in the contention. It is true that if an employer or workman is not satisfied with the conditions laid down in the order issued under S. 3 (b) it is open to them to raise an industrial dispute and in that event the State Government is required to refer the dispute for adjudication under S. 4 K of the Act. But if the order itself is without jurisdiction it is open to the aggrieved party to seek relief against that order under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Moreover, the alternative remedy as suggested by the standing counsel is not an efficacious remedy. It would not be proper to deny relief to the petitioner. If there was a real dispute relating to the revision of wages, the State Government had six years at its disposal to refer the same for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the State Government did not exercise its power under S. 4K of the Act during all these years. In our opinion the exercise of power under S. 3 (b) of the Act was arbitrary and void. 9. WE, therefore, allow the petition and quash the impugned notifications, dated 9 August 1972, 7 January 1974 and 7 January 1977, in so far as they affect the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to costs.