Judgment :- 1. This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing an order, Ext. P5, passed by the first respondent, the Inspector under S.3 and R.1 of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National & Festival Holidays) Act 47 of 1958. The petitioner is the General Secretary of Tomco Employees Union, Ernakulam, and the four respondents are (1) the Assistant Labour Officer, (2) the Manager, Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd., (3) the Secretary, Tata Oil Mills Workers Union, Ernakulam, and (4) the Secretary, Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., Staff Association, Ernakulam. 2. The facts may be briefly stated: The petitioner is the General Secretary of the Tomco Employees Union, a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Union Act. A section of the workers in the Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., at Ernakulam are members of this Union. Under the Standing Orders of the Company, copy of which has been filed as Ext. P1, the employees were entitled to get holidays with pay on five days, namely, New Year's day, Founder's Day, Good Friday, Onam, and Christmas Day. It was also provided in the Standing Orders that in the event of the Company being compelled to observe a holiday or holidays for reasons of State, such day or days would also be counted as Company holiday or holidays. There was a later agreement, Ext. R2, between the management and the workers by which one more day, namely, the Union Day, i. e. the last Monday in the month of March, was also made a holiday with pay. According to the petitioner, the Standing Orders stand modified by this agreement. The Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act 47 of 1958, became law in the State on 29-12-1958. Under S.3 of the said Act, every employee is to be allowed in each calender year a holiday of one whole day on 26th January, 15th August, 1st May and four other holidays. The three compulsory holidays are National Holidays. Under rules framed under the Act the Assistant Labour Officer, Ernakulam has been appointed Inspector under the Act. The second respondent addressed a communication to the first respondent stating that seven holidays inclusive of the three National Holidays would be given to the workers. The first respondent invited objections and Ext. The three compulsory holidays are National Holidays. Under rules framed under the Act the Assistant Labour Officer, Ernakulam has been appointed Inspector under the Act. The second respondent addressed a communication to the first respondent stating that seven holidays inclusive of the three National Holidays would be given to the workers. The first respondent invited objections and Ext. P2 is the notice received by the petitioner in that behalf. Ext. P3 is copy of the objections filed by the petitioner. The first respondent called a conference to decide this question and the petitioner and the respondents attended the same. Ext. P4 is copy of the proceedings of the conference. On 9th March 1959 the petitioner received an order, Ext. P5, from the first respondent, fixing four holidays in addition to the three National holidays. These four days are Founder's Day, Good Friday, Onam Day and Christmas Day. The Union Day is not a holiday under Ext. P5. According to the petitioner, Ext. P5 has to be quashed on the following grounds: (1) The Standing Orders under which six holidays are provided cannot be amended except in the manner provided in the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and the Rules framed thereunder. No such amendment having been made, the order reducing the number of festival holidays is illegal. (2) The first res-pendent has no jurisdiction to amend the Standing Orders. (3) The first respondent should have found that the workers were entitled to get the six holidays which they were formerly enjoying in addition to the three National holidays. 3. The members of the Tomco Employees Union did not attend work on the 30th March 1959 which was one of the holidays provided by the agreement referred to earlier. On 6th April 1959 an interlocutory application was filed praying for an injunction directing the second respondent from proceeding with the enquiry against the workmen for absence on 30th March, 1959. This application does not appear to have been moved for orders. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavits. The first respondents States that on receipt of the communication from the company and objections filed by the three trade unions, he convened a conference of the interested parties and passed the order in question. It is further stated that under S.3 of the Act he has only to specify the four festival holidays, and that he has done. Ext. The first respondents States that on receipt of the communication from the company and objections filed by the three trade unions, he convened a conference of the interested parties and passed the order in question. It is further stated that under S.3 of the Act he has only to specify the four festival holidays, and that he has done. Ext. P1 was not produced before him and he has not amended the same. What he has done is with jurisdiction, and the impugned order is not liable to be quashed. The second respondent contends that the agreement allowing a holiday on Union Day has not become part of the Standing Orders which allowed only five holidays, that the first respondent's order is correct having been passed in exercise of the powers vested in him under the Act, that the workers are entitled only to seven holidays and the same have been specified by the first respondent, and that on receipt of the first respondent's order the seven holidays were duly notified. Copies of the correspondence following this have been filed as Exts. R4 and R5. It is further contended that the Standing Orders not having been amended so as to include Union Day also, no question of amendment of the Standing Orders arises in the circumstances. The jurisdiction of the court to interfere is also questioned. 5. The question for decision is whether interference is called for under Art.226 of the Constitution. It is conceded by the petitioner that the first respondent has acted with jurisdiction in passing the impugned order but it is contended that he has acted illegally in over-looking the provisions of S.11 of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act. S.3 and 11 of the Act may be extracted: "3. Every employee shall be allowed in each calendar year a holiday of one whole day on the 26th January, the 15th August and the 1st May and four other holidays each of one whole day for such festivals as the Inspector may, in consultation with the employer and the employees, specify in respect of any industrial establishment. 11. Every employee shall be allowed in each calendar year a holiday of one whole day on the 26th January, the 15th August and the 1st May and four other holidays each of one whole day for such festivals as the Inspector may, in consultation with the employer and the employees, specify in respect of any industrial establishment. 11. Nothing contained in this Act shall adversely affect any rights or privileges which any employee is entitled to with respect to national and festival holidays on the date on which this Act comes into force under any other law, contract, custom or usage, if such rights or privileges are more favourable to him than those to which he would be entitled under this Act." According to S.3 of the Act, all that the first respondent had to do was to fix four holidays other than the three compulsory holidays on the 26th of January, 1st of May and 15th of August, and he has done that. The contention of the petitioner is that when the Act came into force the workers were getting six holidays, five on the strength of the Standing Orders and the sixth as a result of the agreement (Ext. R2) entered into between the management and the workers on 21st December, 1951, and that the workers were entitled to get three more holidays in addition to the six as a result of the Act. In otherwords, the case is that in the case of an industrial establishment where the workers were getting more than four festival holidays but not the National holidays, the jurisdiction of the Inspector is merely to provide that the National holidays would also be holidays thereafter. The choosing of four out of the five existing holidays is alleged to be an infringement of S.11 of the Act. It is urged that the order of the first respondent naming four festival holidays adversely affect the rights or privileges which the workers had on the date this Act came into force and that such rights or privileges cannot be affected by an order under S.3 of the Act. 6. I am unable to accept this argument. S.11 in my opinion means that if the workers were formerly getting more than seven holidays in an year, the total number of holidays could not be reduced to seven by an order passed under S.3 of the Act. 6. I am unable to accept this argument. S.11 in my opinion means that if the workers were formerly getting more than seven holidays in an year, the total number of holidays could not be reduced to seven by an order passed under S.3 of the Act. The employees of the second respondent were having only six holidays previously and that has now been raised to seven, although while gaining three new holidays they loose two of the former holidays, namely, New Year's day and the Union Day. The scheme of the Act appears to be to ensure that all employees in industrial establishments should get a minimum of seven holidays of which three should be the National holidays specified in the Act, namely, 26th of January, 1st of May and 15th of August, -which are made compulsory holidays under the Act. Violation of S.11 may occur only in those cases where the workers were formerly getting more than seven holidays in an year when the total number is reduced to seven under S.3 of the Act but not in a case like this where the total number of holidays is increased to seven. The first respondent has acted in accordance with the provisions of S.3 in specifying the National holidays as well as four other days as holidays. This is all that he is entitled to do under the Act, and in passing the impugned order there is no infringement of S.11 of the Act. 7. There is no merit in the contention that the Standing Orders have been unauthorisedly amended by the second respondent while purporting to act under S.3 of the Act. The Standing Orders provided for five holidays. There was, no doubt, a later agreement Ext. R2, by which Union Day was also made a holiday but Ext. R2 by itself cannot be deemed to have effected an amendment of the Standing Orders since such amendment can be made only in the manner provided by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. The present controversy arose because the management initiated disciplinary action against those workers who did not attend work on'Union Day' which was a holiday under Ext. R2 but not under Ext. P5. Union Day not being one of the holidays provided by the Standing Orders, it cannot be said that in omitting the same the first respondent amended or purported to amend the Standing Orders. R2 but not under Ext. P5. Union Day not being one of the holidays provided by the Standing Orders, it cannot be said that in omitting the same the first respondent amended or purported to amend the Standing Orders. The only holiday in the Standing Orders which is not included in Ext. P5 is New Year's day. The order, Ext. P5, was made only in March, 1959, i e. more than two months after New Year's day in 1959 & the omission of that day is therefore only of academic interest, as a fresh list of holidays will have to be drawn up for the calendar year 1960. It may also be mentioned that learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in case the first respondent is found to have acted in accordance with the Act the question whether all the holidays provided for by the Standing Orders would continue to be available to the workers may be left open. I do not therefore express any opinion on the same. 8. In view of my conclusion that the first respondent acted legally in exercise of his jurisdiction under S.3 of the Act, the order, Ext. P5, does not call for interference under Art.226. The Original petition is therefore dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. Dismissed.