JUDGMENT

Wanchoo, J. - This is an appeal by the General Secretary, Indian Press, Allahabad, Mazdoor Union against the order of the certifying officer, dated 2nd July 1949 by which certain annulments have been made to the standing orders in force in the Indian Press, Allahabad.

2. The facts are that there arose a dispute between the management and the employees of the Indian Press. This dispute was referred to the Labour Commissioner by the Government on 30th April. 1949. The standing orders relating to this establishment were finalised by an order of the appellate authority on 8th March 1948 and this order was served on the parties on 22nd March 1948. In the meantime, an application had been made by the management of the Indian Press to the certifying officer for modification of the standing orders on 6th December 1948. The certifying officer passed an order thereon on 2nd July 1949 making certain amendments while the adjudication proceedings under the orders of the Government dated 30th April 1949 were still pending final orders of the Provincial Government. The award was, however, given on 10th June 1949 in pursuance of the Government's order, dated 80th April 1949. This award was enforced by an order of the Government, dated 2nd August 1949. The award was to remain in force for six months from 2nd August 1949 in the first instance and then was to continue in force for such further period as might be prescribed. The first period of six months from 2nd August 1949 is still turning.

3. The contention of the appellant before me is two fold. It has been urged, in the first place, that in view of Section 10, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act No. XX [20] of 1946, no amendment can be made to the standing orders except with the consent of both the parties. Secondly, it is urged that in view of Section 17, U. P. Industrial Disputes Act No. XXVIII [28] of 1947, no amendment could be made to the standing orders in July 1949.

4. I shall first consider the effect of S. 10 of Act XX [20] of 1946. Section 10(1) of this Act reads as follows :

"Standing orders finally certified under this Act shall not, except on agreement between the employer and the workmen, be liable to modification until the expiry of six months from the date on which the standing orders or the last modifications thereof came into operation."

The argument, on behalf of the appellant, is that the words "except on agreement between the employer and the workmen" used in this section mean that standing orders which have once been certified cannot be changed except on such agreement. On the other hand, the contention, on behalf of the respondent, is that no amendment can be made within six months except with the consent of both the parties, but that thereafter it is not necessary to have the consent of both parties in order to make any amendment to the certified standing orders. I am of opinion that the contention of the respondent is correct and that consent of both parties is only necessary where amendment is to be made within six months of the certification or last modification, if one leaves out the words on which reliance is placed by the appellant, Section 10(1) will read as under:

"Standing orders finally certified under this Act shall not be liable to modification until the expiry of six months from the date on which the standing orders or the last modifications thereof came into operation."

If the section had stood like this, it would not have been possible to amend the standing orders at all within the period of six months, but they could be so amended after the period of six months had expired. The introduction of the words "except on agreement between the employer and the workmen" was clearly meant to remove the bar that there could be no amendment within six months. These words could not have been intended to introduce a further bar that no amendment would ever take place even after the period of six months without the consent of both parties, The natural inter