ORDER B.N. Mishra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Varanasi Electric Supply Undertaking. Previously this undertaking was under the ownership and control of M/s. Martin Burn Banaras Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd., Board. In paragraph-6 of the writ petition it is stated that the Standing Orders governing the employees of the Electricity Board were not made applicable to the employees of the Undertaking who continued to be governed by the Standing Orders framed by the Undertaking prior to its take over by the Board in Feb. 1975. On 1-3-1976 a charge- sheet was issued against respondent No. 2 and he was placed under suspension by the Deputy Resident Engineer on the allegation that he had committed an act of misconduct on 23-2-1976. The Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and thereafter the following punishment was imposed on respondent No. 2 by order dated 28-1-1977 passed by the Executive Engineer (Commercial) : (1) One annual increment was stopped with cumulative effect, (2) Severe warning was given to respondent No. 2 and it was directed that this should be recorded in his service-book; and (3) It was directed that no payment for suspension period shall be made to respondent No. 2. 3. A true copy of the aforesaid order of punishment dated 28-1-1977 has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of punishment respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute through the Union and the State Government made the following reference to the Tribunal under Section. 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) [HINDI MATTER] The petitioner (Company and respondent No. 2 had appeared before the Tribunal, filed their written statements and had also led evidence in support of their respective cases. On consideration the Industrial Tribunal by its award dated 10-12-1979 (Annexure-3) held that the order of suspension as well as the order of punishment passed by the Deputy Resident Engineer were defective, bad in law and, therefore the orders were set aside. The Tribunal further held that respondent No. 2 was entitled to full wages for the period of suspension from 1-3-76 to 31-1-77 and the order stopping one increment and the order relating to adverse remarks were also set aside. 5. The Tribunal further held that respondent No. 2 was entitled to full wages for the period of suspension from 1-3-76 to 31-1-77 and the order stopping one increment and the order relating to adverse remarks were also set aside. 5. The petitioner-Company has prayed in this writ petition to quash the award of the 'Tribunal mainly on the ground that the orders of punishment passed against respondent No. 2 were duly passed by the Competent Authority and the Tribunal went wrong in finding that the orders of punishment which have been passed by the Executive Engineer (Commercial) were without jurisdiction having been passed by an incompetent authority. On perusal of the award it is seen that the petitioner-Company had not produced the original or copy of the order dated 21-1-1977 before the Tribunal. However, both the parties had admitted before the Tribunal that the said order of punishment had been passed by the Executive Engineer (Commercial). In this Court the petitioner- Company has filed a copy of the said order of punishment which is Annexure-4. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 had been appointed by the Resident Engineer prior to take over of the petitioner-Company by the State Electricity Board. It is also not in dispute that respondent No. 2 was governed by the Standing Orders applicable to the employees of the others while Company and not under the Standing Orders of the Electricity Board. 6. In this context it would be useful to refer to the following extracts from paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned award of the Tribunal : "Paragraph- 8. I have carefully gone through the entire proceedings in this case as well as all the documents produced and also the oral evidence produced from both the sides. I have also very carefully studied the proceedings of the domestic enquiry produced before this Tribunal by the employers and also the relevant portions produced by the workman which were omitted by the employers. I have also very carefully studied the proceedings of the domestic enquiry produced before this Tribunal by the employers and also the relevant portions produced by the workman which were omitted by the employers. There is no denying of the fact that the concerned workman was governed by the Standing Orders the old company which existed before takeover of the concern by the U.P. Electricity Board as he has not opted to the new Rules of U.P. State Electricity Board and therefore, it is obvious that the domestic enquiry was held under the provisions of the old Standing Orders of the company which existed before the takeover and which are still in force for the workman who were serving the said company and have not opted for the new rules after the take over."............" "Paragraph-9. But the main point raised by the workman is that the order of suspension and order of punishment were not passed by the competent authority. Strangely enough both these orders have not been produced by either party but it has been admitted that these two orders were passed by the Deputy Resident Engineer. A perusal of the Standing Orders of the Company which apply in this case shows that the competent authority in this respect representing the Company was Resident Engineer who was the appointing authority and was the only authority competent to pass suspension orders and also the punishment orders after a valid and legal domestic enquiry and the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer. The employers have completely failed to produce and prove if the Deputy Resident Engineer was legally and validly authorised to pass such orders on behalf of the Resident Engineer and/or the Company. No such document has either been produced or any convincing evidence led to that effect. Now unless this is proved that the Deputy Resident Engineer was the competent authority the entire case of the employers falls as the orders passed will be held to be without jurisdiction and in the eyes of law will be non-existent. Even in the arguments nothing convincing has been said which might help the contention of the employers that these orders were passed by the competent authority. The oral evidence produced in this behalf only indicates the duties and functions of the various officers in the present set up but this is not enough. Even in the arguments nothing convincing has been said which might help the contention of the employers that these orders were passed by the competent authority. The oral evidence produced in this behalf only indicates the duties and functions of the various officers in the present set up but this is not enough. It was very material to prove that the powers of the Resident Engineer in matters of appointment, suspension and punishment of various shades and quantum for the category to which the concerned workman belonged vested with the Deputy Resident Engineer which has not been done .........................." 7. Reference may now be made to Annexure-CA 2 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2. This is a statement of one Ram Mohan Chandra, Assistant Engineer, working under the Electricity Board before the Tribunal and he has inter alia clearly stated that the Deputy Resident Engineers under the erst while Company are of the rank of the Executive Engineers under the Electricity Board. Admittedly respondent No. 2 had been appointed as Sub-Station Attendant by the Resident Engineer under the erst while Company. The order of punishment, Annexure-4, shows that it has been passed by the Executive Engineer (Commercial) who, according to the statement of the Assistant Engineer, Ram Mohan Chandra, is of the same rank as the Deputy Resident Engineer. In its award the Tribunal has noted that according to the relevant Standing Orders of the erst while Company the Deputy Resident Engineer was not competent to impose the punishments as contained in Annexure-4 on respondent No. 2 which could be imposed only by the Appointing Authority, i.e., an officer of the rank of the Resident Engineer. No materials have been placed by the petitioner-Company before this Court to show that this finding of the Tribunal is incorrect and that the punishments as contained in Annexure-44 could be imposed by the Deputy Resident Engineer. Thus, the award of the Tribunal must be held to be just and proper and does not call for interference. 8. In the result, this writ petition which has no merit is dismissed. Interim orders if any, stand vacated. No. costs.