G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 4-11-1980 passed on I. A. No. 1 in O. S. No. 1086 of 1980 on the file of the Additional Second Munsiff, bangalore, allowing the LA. for issue of temporary injunction. ( 2 ) THE suit is one for injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that he wa;s retired from his services by the second defendant on behalf of the first defendant and the same was contrary to the provisions made in the Model Standing orders issued under the Industrial employment (Standing Orders) Act. ( 3 ) THE points, therefore, that arise for my consideration in this appeal are: (1) Whether the standing orders provide for superannuation and as such whether there is any breach of any condition in the standing orders? (2) If not whether the trial Court was justified in issuing the temporary injunction order? ( 4 ) IT is no doubt true that the appellate Court is not expected to lightly brush aside a discretionary order issued by the trial Court. It is equally settled law that if the, trial court misapplies the law, it is the duty of this Court to set aside such an order. ( 5 ) I am in accord with the sub-mission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the standing orders introduce statutory obligation in the contract and they give the employees a status under the statute. But, the simple question that arises for my consideration is whether the model standing orders provide for superannuation. My attention was drawn to the schedule to the Industrial employment (Standing Orders) Act which reads: matters to be provided in Standing orders under this Act. It contains 11 clauses. It is nowhere stated therein that superannuation is one of the subjects to be covered by the standing orders. Therefore, it is obvious, that superannuation is not the subject matter of the standing orders. ( 6 ) IT is true that in case the standing orders provide for a subject even if there are service rules or conditions on the same subject, they get superseded by the standing orders. It is equally true that if the standing orders do not provide for any subject, the contract between the parties prevails. ( 6 ) IT is true that in case the standing orders provide for a subject even if there are service rules or conditions on the same subject, they get superseded by the standing orders. It is equally true that if the standing orders do not provide for any subject, the contract between the parties prevails. It is not in dispute in the instant case that the employee has opted to retire on completing 55th year under the contract of service. That being so, there being no standing order on the subject of superannuation, the contract prevails and there is absolutely no breach of provision of any standing order or subject matter of the contract on the facts of this case. ( 7 ) IN the result, therefore, the trial court misconceived the entire scope of the suit, failed to consider the scope of the standing orders and mis-applied the provisions of law to the facts of the case in issuing a temporary injunction order. Such an order which is per se illegal cannot be allowed to stand. Besides it is obvious that a contract of service cannot be specifically enforced; and on the facts of this case the employee is merely superannuated pursuant to the terms in the contract of service. ( 8 ) IN the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed. The interim injunction issued by the trial court is hereby vacated. No costs. --- *** --- .