JUDGMENT : Radhakrishna, J.—The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. It employs more than 250 workers in its factory at Pappinisseri. The petitioner has, therefore, to provide a canteen as provided for under Rule 91(2) of the Factories Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") made u/s 46 of the Factories Act, 1948. 2. Due to the increase in the price of rice, wheat and other articles required for preparation of foodstuffs in the canteen, the petitioner put forward a proposal in 1981 for revision of the prices of foodstuffs supplied in the canteen before the Canteen Committee, constituted under Rule 96 of the Rules. Since there was no consensus of opinion among the members of the Canteen Committee, the petitioner moved the second respondent for the approval of the proposal to enhance the prices under rule 94. The second respondent after considering the various aspects of the matter granted the approval sought for as is seen from exhibit P-2. 3. Aggrieved by exhibit P-2 order, one of the unions preferred a representation before the first respondent who by exhibit P-5 order, however, sustained exhibit P-2 order. The unions were not satisfied with exhibit P-5 order and, therefore, they again made a second representation to the same authority who by exhibit P-8 order has set aside exhibit P-2 order. Not only that he also fixed the prices arbitrarily. Exhibit P-8 order of the first respondent is under challenge in this O.P. 4. In exercise of the powers vested in them u/s 46 of the Factories Act, the Government have made Rules 91 to 97 for the governance of the canteens attached to factories which employ more than 250 workers. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 91 provides "that the occupier" of every factory where more than 250 workers are ordinarily employed shall provide in or near the factory an adequate canteen according to the standards prescribed in these rues". Rule 94 provides that food, drinks and other items served in the canteen shall be served on a nonprofit basis and the prices charged shall be subject, to the approval of the Canteen Managing Committee. 5. Rule 94 provides that food, drinks and other items served in the canteen shall be served on a nonprofit basis and the prices charged shall be subject, to the approval of the Canteen Managing Committee. 5. Since there was no consensus of opinion regarding the enhancement of prices among the members of the Managing Committee, the matter was placed before the second respondent who by exhibit P-2 order determined the rates that can be charged for the foodstuffs supplied in the canteen by the management. 6. On going through the rules aforesaid, it is clear that the final authority to decide the question relating to the prices to be charged in the canteen attached to the factory, is the second respondent, the Director of Factories and Boilers (who originally had been designated as Chief Inspector of Factories). There is no appeal from his orders and that it is so is clear from the provisions contained in Rules 91 to 97. 7. Nonetheless, it is seen that the Exhibit P-2 order was challenged before the first respondent by the union. The first respondent by exhibit P-5 sustained exhibit P-2 originally. The first respondent, however, interfered with exhibit P-2 accepting the second representation, and while doing so the first respondent has even reduced the prices which subsisted at the time when the occupier of the factory approached the second respondent for enhancement of prices of foodstuffs supplied in the canteen. 8. That the first respondent is not an authority constituted under the rules is beyond challenge. The first respondent, therefore, is not competent to entertain the representation and interfere with the order exhibit P-2. The order passed by him, therefore, is without jurisdiction and hence void ab initio. 9. Learned counsel for the union, however submits that inasmuch as the management did not raise the question of jurisdiction before the first respondent at the initial stage the management shall not be permitted to take up this issue for the first time in this proceeding. Dilating on this point, learned counsel submits that the person who sal on the fence and took the chance of the decision in his favour shall not be permitted to turn round and attack the order when the verdict goes against him. There cannot be any dispute about this proposition. However, initial lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent of parties. There cannot be any dispute about this proposition. However, initial lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent of parties. In the instant case, as already stated, the first respondent is not an authority constituted under the rules. For that matter, the unions have no case that the first respondent is an authority constituted under the statute. If that be so, the above argument is without substance and hence is rejected 10. For the reasons stated above, the order under challenge is liable to be vacated. I accordingly quash exhibit P-8 and declare that the order passed by exhibit P-2 is valid and requires to be implemented. 11. O.P. is allowed but in the circumstances of the case no costs.