ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - In this petition under Article 228 of the Constitution, the petitioner wants that the' order dated 8-3-1967 passed by the appellate authority, dismissing the petitioner's appeal as incompetent, be quashed. 2. The petitioner owns and runs a power loom factory at Hathras for the manufacture of coarse and medium cloth. As required by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, the petitioner submitted to the Certifying Officer draft standing orders for adoption in the petitioner's industrial establishment. On 3-1-1966, the representatives of the workmen accepted the revised draft of the standing orders submitted by the petitioner except the clause regarding festival holidays. After hearing the parties, namely, the petitioner Company and its workmen, the Certifying Officer approved the Standing Orders by his order dated 8th November, 1966, but changed the draft standing orders in so far as it related to the festival holidays and provided for six days' festival holidays with full wages. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 6 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The memorandum of appeal was sent by post and was received in the office of the appellate authority on 9-12-1966. On 13th December, 1966, the appellate authority informed the petitioner that the appeal filed by the petitioner was defective in several respects, The number of section, under which the appeal was preferred, was wrongly stated in the memorandum of appeal. The original Standing Orders, as certified by the Certifying Officer, had not been enclosed, nor spare copies thereof had been sent. The petitioner was directed to remove these defects and was informed that the appeal would be entertained on removal of the above noted defects. On 20th December, 1968, the petitioner sent the original Standing Orders along with the requisite spare copies, and also clarified the matter about the section, under which the appeal was preferred. The appeal appears to have been entertained and registered. Notices of dates fixed in the case were given to the concerned parties. 3. On the date fixed for the hearing 'of the case, the workmen took a preliminary objection that the appeal was incompetent and barred by time. The period of limitation was 30 days and it expired prior to the removal of the defects. Notices of dates fixed in the case were given to the concerned parties. 3. On the date fixed for the hearing 'of the case, the workmen took a preliminary objection that the appeal was incompetent and barred by time. The period of limitation was 30 days and it expired prior to the removal of the defects. The non-submission of the authenticated copies of the Certified Standing Orders went to the root of the matter and without it, the memorandum of appeal could not be treated as duly presented within time. 4. The Appellate Authority held that when a law or statutory rule makes a provision that a particular document shall be supplied with the grounds of appeal, failure to do so makes the appeal incompetent. The Appellate Authority principally relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagat Dish v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava, A.I.R. 1961 SC 832. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the requirement of Order 41, R. 1, Civil P. C. that the memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree was imperative and non-compliance thereof shall make the appeal incompetent. In the present case, by the time the defects were removed and copies of the Standing Orders were supplied, the limitation had run out. Under the law, the Appellate Authority had not been conferred jurisdiction to condone the delay in the institution of appeals. It, therefore, rejected the appeal as time barred. 5. Section 5 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act deals with the certification of the Standing Orders. Under sub-section (2) thereof, after giving the employer and the trade union or such other representatives of the workmen, as may be prescribed, an opportunity of hearing, the Certifying Officer shall decide whether or not any modification of or addition to the draft standing orders submitted by the employers is necessary to render the draft certifiable under this Act and shall make an order in writing accordingly. Under sub-section (3), the Certifying Officer shall certify the draft Standing Orders after making the modifications, which his order under sub-section (2) may require, and shall send copies of the certified Standing Orders authenticated in the prescribed manner to the employers and the trade unions or other prescribed representatives of the workmen. Under sub-section (3), the Certifying Officer shall certify the draft Standing Orders after making the modifications, which his order under sub-section (2) may require, and shall send copies of the certified Standing Orders authenticated in the prescribed manner to the employers and the trade unions or other prescribed representatives of the workmen. Thus under sub-section (2), the Certifying Official passes an order making the modification or additions necessary' to the draft submitted by the employers; and then under sub-section (3) he approves the draft Standing Orders and sends the certified Standing Orders and his order under subsection (2) to the parties. Under Section 6, an appeal lies against the order of the Certifying Officer under Section 5 (2) and not against the certified standing order as such. The appeal can be preferred within 30 days from the date on which the copies are sent under Section 5 (3). Under the Civil Procedure Code, appeal lies against the decree. That is why the decree is treated as the document of paramount importance. With-j out it, the appeal is incompetent. Similarly, under Section 6 (1), appeal lies against the order passed under Section 5 (2). That order is in the nature of a decree under the Civil Procedure Code. The appellate authority was in error in treating the certified Standing Orders to be the Basic document having the importance of a decree under the Civil Procedure Code. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was accompanied by a copy of the order of the Certifying Officer passed under sub-section (2) of Section 5. It could not, therefore, be treated as incompetent under Section 6 (1) of the Act. 6. Section 6 of the Act does not specifically require any document to be accompanied with the appeal against an order under Section 5(2). It confers a right of appeal against an order under Section 5 (2). It may, by implication, contemplate that the order under Section 5 (2) should accompany the appeal. Section 15 of the Act confers rule-making power on the appropriate Government. Section 14-A introduced by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Amendment Act No. 16 of 1961 authorised the Central Government to delegate the powers exercisable by it under the rule-making power to the State Governments-The State Government framed U. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1946. Section 15 of the Act confers rule-making power on the appropriate Government. Section 14-A introduced by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Amendment Act No. 16 of 1961 authorised the Central Government to delegate the powers exercisable by it under the rule-making power to the State Governments-The State Government framed U. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1946. Rule 20 thereof states : "Subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, an Industrial Court may regulate its own procedure as it thinks fit." The Appellate Authority, in virtue of this delegation, framed some rules of procedure, called the Appellate Authority U. P. (Under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act) Rules of Procedure, 1958. Rule 7 thereof deals with the presentation of the appeals. This was amended by notification No. 129/IT-EST (170) dated January 10, 1964. Rule 7, as amended reads as follows : "The memorandum of appeal duly verified and signed by the appellant and accompanied by the authenticated copies of the order of the Certifying Officer along with its enclosures and forwarding letter may be presented in the office of the appellate authority by the appellant personally or by his duly authorised agent, or may be sent by acknowledgment due registered post. In the latter case, the appeal shall be deemed to have been presented on the day it is received in the office of the appellate authority. The appellant shall file with the memorandum of appeal as many copies of the grounds of appeal and its enclosures as is the number of the opposite parties (representatives of the parties being counted separately for the purpose) and three more copies." Thus, this Rule requires the memorandum of appeal to be accompanied by the authenticated copies of the order of the Certifying Officer along with its enclosures and the forwarding letter at the time of its presentation. Then Rule 9 of these Rules of Procedure says : "If the memorandum of appeal is defective, the appellate authority may indicate the defect and give reasonable opportunity to the appellant to remove the same." There is no specification of the defects liable to be removed under this Rule. It shall, on its language, apply to all kinds of &defects noticed by the appellate authority. It shall, on its language, apply to all kinds of &defects noticed by the appellate authority. In the present case, the appellate authority pointed out two defects, namely the error in mentioning the Section under which the appeal was preferred and the non-supply of the Certified Standing Orders with its copies. These errors were removed by the petitioner. The appeal was preferred within time, The defects were removed after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the appeal. The Rules of Procedure do not prescribe any limitation for the removal of the defects. 7. It will be seen that Section 6 (1) uses the expression 'appeal' whereas Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure uses the expression 'memorandum of appeal'. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Ratan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Kanpur, A.I.R. 1968 SC 488 para 10, the expression 'Appeal' and "Memorandum of Appeal' are used to denote two distinct things. The appeal is the judicial examination; the memorandum of appeal contains the grounds, upon which the judicial examination is invited. The right conferred by Section 6 is to invite judicial examination of the matter by the appellate authority. The appellate authority has been authorised to frame rules to regulate its own procedure subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Rules of Procedure, therefore, cannot enlarge or restrict or annihilate the right of appeal conferred by the provisions of the Act. They can only regulate the procedure of the appellate authority alone. The requirement of Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure that the memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by certain mentioned documents, cannot be treated as mandatory in view of the absence of any such requirement under Section 6 of the Act or in the Rules framed by the State Government, and further in view of the powerful fact that Rule 9 authorised the appellate authority to indicate the defect and give reasonable opportunity to the appellant to remove the same. A combined reading of Rules 7 and 9 leads to the inevitable conclusion that Rule 7 does not state the conditions precedent to the competence of an appeal under Section 6 (1). A defective memorandum of appeal is nonetheless a memorandum of appeal attracting the applicability of Rule 9. A combined reading of Rules 7 and 9 leads to the inevitable conclusion that Rule 7 does not state the conditions precedent to the competence of an appeal under Section 6 (1). A defective memorandum of appeal is nonetheless a memorandum of appeal attracting the applicability of Rule 9. Rules 7 and 9 recognise the fact of presentation of a memorandum of appeal even though it be defective. Rule 9 says that the appellate authority may indicate the defect and give reasonable opportunity for its removal. That confers a discretionary power on the appellate authority. The exercise of this power and compliance with it only means that the defects in the presentation of appeal became non-existent. Then the appeal would become properly presented when initially presented and the memorandum of appeal would be liable to be acted upon. 8. This approach to the constructions of the Rules of Procedure subserves the paramount purpose of the rules of procedure, namely, to advance the cause of justice, and not defeat it. The rules of procedure should not be a trap for the unwary or innocent litigants. That is why the rigour of Rule 7 was mitigated by Rule 9. 9. The appeal presented by the petitioner was accompanied by the basic document, that is, the order under Section 5 (2). The appeal hence could not be treated as incompetent. Further the Rules of procedure do not prescribe conditions precedent or the period of limitation for the exercise of the right of appeal conferred by Section 6 of the Act. Rule 7 is directory. Its breach does not affect the maintainability of the appeal in a case where the appellate authority had in its discretion permitted the removal of the defect under Rule 9 as in tire present case. The appellate authority was in error in rejecting the petitioner's appeal as time barred. 10. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 8th March, 1967, is set aside. The matter is sent back to the appellate authority for disposal of the petitioner's appeal on the merits, in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, the parties will bear their own costs.