JUDGMENT

Gajendragadkar, C.J.I. - This appeal has been brought to this Court by special leave and it challenges the validity of certain others passed by the certifying authorities in respect of the draft Standing Orders which the appellant, the Rohtak Hissar Districts Electric Supply Co., Ltd., had submitted to them for certification. Five respondents have been impleaded to this appeal; they are the State of U.P., Certifying officer for Standing Orders and Labour Commissioner, U.P., Kanpur, and three representatives of the employees respectively. At the hearing before us, the employees representatives have not appeared and appeal has been contested by respondent No. 1 alone.

The appellant is a Joint Stock Company incorporated under the Companies Act, and it has its registered office at Allahabad. The principal object for which this Company has been incorporated is to carry on the business of generation and distribution of electricity. In accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (No. 20 of 1946) (hereinafter called the Act), the appellant prepared draft Standing Orders in consultation with its employees and submitted the same to the Certifying Officer on the 24th December, 1950, for certification. At that time, the workmen employed by the appellant had not formed any Union, and so, the Labour Department held proceedings for the election of the three representatives from the said workmen. Normally, a union representing the workmen would have been competent and qualified to represent the workmen in the certification proceedings; but since there was no Union in existence, the Labour Department had to adopt the expedient of asking the workmen to elect three representatives. That is how respondents 3 to 5 came to be elected as the representatives of workmen. In the certification proceeding, these representatives took no objection the draft Standing Order submitted by the appellant. In fact, the said draft Standing Orders were submitted to the Certifying Officer on the basis that they had been agreed to by the appellant and its workmen.

The Certifying Officer, however, examined the fairness and reasonableness of the provisions contained in the said draft Standing Orders and made several changes in them. The draft Standing Orders with the changes made by the Certifying Officer were accordingly certified on 21st November, 1962.

Against the said order passed by the Certifying Officer, the appellant filed an appeal before the Industrial Tribunal, U.P., Allahabad, which had been appointed the Appellate Authority under the Act. It was urged by the appellant before the Appellate Authority that the Certifying Officer was in error in making modifications in the draft Standing Orders submitted to him for his certification, but the Appellate Authority did not accept the appellants contention and, in substance, confirmed the order passed by the Certifying Officer. In the result, the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 29th June, 1963. It is against this appellate order that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.

Along with this appeal, Civil Appeal No. 1105 of 1964 has been placed before us for hearing and final disposal. This appeal arises between the appellant M/s Amitabh Textile Mills, Ltd., and its workmen and it raises substantially the same points as arise in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 1965. Mr. K. K. Jain, who appeared for the appellant in this appeal, has stated before us that the decision in this appeal will follow our decision in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 1965. That is why we do not propose to refer to the facts in this appeal nor deal with it separately.

The first point which Mr. Setalvad has raised before us in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 1965 is of a general character. He contends that the Model Standing Orders which have been followed as a pattern by the certifying authorities in the present certification proceedings, are themselves inva