JUDGMENT- N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---Heard Shri Prabhakaran for the petitioner, Mrs. A.S. Rasal, Asstt. Govt, Pleader for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 and Shri A.H. Joshi for the respondent No. 4. 2. Petitioner Union has challenged a Notification dated 19th July, 1993 issued by the State of Maharashtra declaring service in the respondent No. 4 Company as Public Utility Service for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for a period of six months commencing from that day. It has not been disputed before me that production of catgut in an industry which can be declared to be a public utility service. The order is challenged on the ground that the action is mala fide in as much as it was made to prevent the workers of the respondent No. 4 Company from going or continuing the strike and there is non-application of mind exhibited from the fact that another Unit of the same Company at Bombay producing catgut has not been brought within the purview of the said Notification. The third ground on which the said Notification is challenged is that no hearing was given to the petitioner Union before passing such an order. 3. Public Utility Service is defined in section 2(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and apart from the entries from (i) to (v) which are permanently considered to be the Public Utility Services, entry (vi) authorizes appropriate Government to declare any industry specified in first schedule to be Public Utility Service, if staisfied that public emergency or public interest so requires. Power to be exercised by the Government is on the basis of the subjective satisfaction which the Government may arrive at on considering the material placed before it. 4. Shri B.D. Rathod, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad has filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 stating that the respondent No. 4 - Unit at Waluj is the only industry manufacturing catgut in Maharashtra and the Government has received messages from different Government hospitals about the shortage of catgut. This fact has not been disputed by any of the parties that catgut is one of the essential commodities used in surgery and if the shortage of this commodity is likely to result in the public inconvenience, then the Government would be justified in issuing Notification declaring it to be a Public Utility Service. 5. This fact has not been disputed by any of the parties that catgut is one of the essential commodities used in surgery and if the shortage of this commodity is likely to result in the public inconvenience, then the Government would be justified in issuing Notification declaring it to be a Public Utility Service. 5. Another objection raised by Shri Prabhakaran is that the Bombay Unit of the said Company which also manufactures catgut has not been brought within the purview of this Notification. It is admitted fact that in Bombay Unit, there is no strike or any threat of strike. Question of declaration of a service to be a Public Utility Service arise only in case there is likelihood of the stoppage of work either because of the lock out or a strike. Since such a situation had not arisen in Bombay, there was no occasion for the Government to bring that Unit within the purview of the said Notification. 6. Third ground on which impugned Notification is attacked is that there is no hearing given to the Union before declaration of their service to be a Public Utility Service. The very purpose for which special provisions regarding Public Utility Service are made in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is to meet out the emergency. In cases of emergency, if the power given to the appropriate Government is to be exercised, it follows that such a power is to be exercised expeditiously. The rule of natural justice which may be read in such statute have their own limitations. The nature of power to be exercised would also govern the ambit of the application of rule of natural justice in that case. When an obligation to give notice and opportunity to be heard would obstruct the taking of prompt action, especially an action of a preventive or remedial nature, one may assume that the rule Audi Alteram Pertem stands excluded. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 itself specifies certain services like railway service, service in major port, postal, telegraph and telephone service, service in the power or water supply or in the system connected with the public sanitation as Public Utility Services, and Clause (vi) which authorizes Government to declare any service to be a Public Utility Service, does not give unfettered power to Government. Government has to declare any service to be a Public Utility Service from amongst the industries mentioned in the Schedule. Therefore, the legislature has applied its mind and considered the nature of certain industries and have included those industries in the Schedule in respect of which it thought that though they are not to be considered Public Utility Services all the time, still whenever occasion arise, they may be declared as Public Utility Services. The occasion is to be judged by emergency which the circumstance may subjectively satisfy the Government. Therefore, material to be considered by the Government while exercising its powers under Clause (vi) of section 2(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is emergency that might have arisen because of the non-supply of certain commodities produced in those industries or the non-availability of service which those industries render to the public. Except this, no other consideration can weigh in the mind of the appropriate Government to declare a particular industry to be a Public Utility Service. It has nothing to do with the demands of the workers or the exigencies which the management is required to face. Therefore, though a strike may be justified in industry because of reasonable demands of the workers or a lock out may be justified in that industry because of the difficulties faced by the management, both the things are prohibited in case of Public Utility Services and it is an exception to the general rights which employees and employers may otherwise enjoy. The material to be considered by the authority has nothing to do with the demands of the workers or the difficulties of the management. The consideration is somewhat outside the industry i.e. the difficulty faced by the general public because of the stoppage of work at such industries. Therefore, though worker or management, as the case may be, are likely to be affected because of declaration of a service in particular industry as Public Utility Service, they do not have a right of hearing before such an order is passed. 7. Therefore, though worker or management, as the case may be, are likely to be affected because of declaration of a service in particular industry as Public Utility Service, they do not have a right of hearing before such an order is passed. 7. Appropriate Government has right to prohibit a strike or lock out as the case may be under section 10(3) when a reference has been made to a Board, though an order prohibiting strike directly affects the labourers working in that industry in which a reference about the industrial dispute has been made under section 10(1), Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Harish Bijaykumar Khaitan and another v. State of Maharashtra and others)1, 1988 F.L.R. 686, negatived a contention that the doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem is to be made applicable and notice or atleast hearing will have to be given to the workers before such a prohibition order is issued. Quoting the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in (Eenaudu Press Workers Union and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another)2, (1979)I L.L.J. 391, this Court was pleased to observe: "The purpose of section 10(3) would be negated if the appropriate Government was required to hear the affected parties before issuance of order thereunder." The requirement of hearing of the parties in the instant case, before issuance of the Notification under section 2(n)(vi) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will have to be considered on similar lines. For both these reasons, the submission of Shri Prabhakaran that the Union should have been heard before notification under section 2(n)(vi) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is published, will have to be nagatived. 8. This petition further prays that section 2(n)(vi) of the Industrial Disputes Act is ultra vires to the Constitution and be struck down. No proper foundation has been laid down for this contention in this petition. It has not been shown as to how it is ultra vires to any of the constitutional provisions. Shri Prabhakaran was fair enough to concede that in the petition sufficient material in support of this prayer has not been placed and, therefore, he does not press it. 9. In the result, the writ petition fails and is summarily rejected. Petition dismissed.