( 1 ) M/s Bharat Electronics Ltd. is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by respondent No. l, the Appellate Authority as well as by Certifying Officer. By the impugned order they amended Clause 9. 1 and 14. 1 of the draft standing order submitted by the petitioner for certification.

( 2 ) VIDE Clause 9. 1, petitioner had proposed 18 days annual leave to its workmen. In clause 14. 1 it reserved the right to transfer the employees from one unit to another and from one State or town to another. Workmen did not agree to the proposal given in these two clauses and therefore, made representation before the Certifying Officer. The Appelalte Authority as well as the Certifying Officer keeping in view the annual leave granted by the Ghaziahad Unit of the Company amended Clause 9. 1 thereby certifying that 30 days annual leave be given to the workmen, by amending modifying Clause 14. 1 of the draft standing order they curtailed the powers of the Management, petitioner to effect transfer of its employees to other units of the company. This has been done on the presumption that Kotdwara unit of the Company and its employees had relationship of master and servant dehorse the company. Moreover, transfer if permitted would amount to termination of that relalionship between the Kotdwara Unit and its employees. Hence, the power to transter as proposed under Clause 14. 1 was not certified. Aggreived by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

( 3 ) THE questions for determination can he summed up as under. (1) Whether the Certifying Officer or for that matter respondent No. 1 i. e. the Appellate Authority could ignore the settlement arrived at between the workmen and, the Management thereby agreeing that no other demand would he raised having financial implication during the currency of that settlement, (2) Whether the Certifying Officer or for that matter the Appellale Authority could modify Clause 9. 1 of the draft standing order by simply relying on the certified standing orders of Ghaziabad Unit of the Company; (3) What is an Industry-cum-Region Principle? (4) whether the Certifying Officer or the Appellate Aulhorily was justified in treating the workers of Koldwara unil as employees exclusively of that unit and hence petitioner having no power to transfer them.

( 4 ) BEFORE dealing with the above questions, it would be useful to glance at the first instance the facts of this case. The relevant facts are that the petitioner is one of the nine production units of M/s Bharat Electronics Ltd. (hereinafler called the company ). The company is under the Administrative control of the Government of India. Its different units are situated in different parts of the country. The Company is engaged in the manufacturing of sophisticated professional grade electronic equip- ment and components for the consumption of the armed forces of the Union of India and for Defence and Civil Services, para- military services. Department of Space. All India Radio, Doordarshan, Civil Aviation, Department of Tele-Communications. Oil Industry etc.

( 5 ) ONE of the unit of the Company is situated at Kotdwara in the State of Utter Pradesh. It is engaged in the manufacturing of switching equipment for Defence and Department of Tele-Communication and others. This unit was established In the year 1984. It has engaged nearly 630 workmen. Petitioner being industrial establishment was required to submit draft standing order before the Certifying Officer appointed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 (in short "act") for certification.

( 6 ) PRIOR to the submission of this draft standing orders, the workmen had submitted Charter of Demands on 2nd May, 1988 raising as many as 27 demands under various heads, namely:-

CLAUSE 1. General. 2. Minimum wages. 3. Revision of wage structure, 4. DA, 5. CCA, 6,hill allowance. 7. Housing and House Rent Allowance. 8. Other allowances, 9. Advances. 10. Terminal Benefits. 11. Employment/ reti