JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat, J. - The preliminary objection raised by Mr. B.N. Singh, appearing for the workman about the jurisdiction of this Court to deal with the matter is overruled because the office of the petitioner-company is at Kanpur and the rights of the petitioner are likely to be affected at Kanpur and not at any other place. Therefore, this court has jurisdiction to decide the writ petition. 2. The Labour Court has decided the preliminary issue against the petitioner by which it is stated that the charge-sheet framed against the workman was without the authority as the person who had framed the charge was not manager in accordance with the Standing Orders of the factory of which the respond cot-workman was initially an employee. 3. The petitioner has challenged that finding in this writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act of 1946 a person, who had framed the charge was employer within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the said Act. Section 7 of the Factories Act prescribes 'fiat a manager is to be appointed for a factory. The occupier of the factory has to nominate by a written notice of 15 days, he begins to occupy the premises of the factory as manager, information whereof is to be sent to the Chief inspector of Factories. Under Section 2 of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act of 1946 employer is defined which includes any person framed under clause (f) of Section 7 (i) of the Factories Act of 1948 as manager of the Factory. 4. The Labour Court has come to a finding that the manager is appointed only for the purpose of discharging the functions under the Factories Act and he could not be deemed to be an employer under law. Consequently he could not frame the charge because there was no delegation of power to him whereby he was authorised to frame the charge. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also for the workman in the writ petitioner. 6. From the plain reading of the provisions of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act of 1946 and the Factories Act of 1948 it appears that the employer would include the manager appointed under the Factories Act in terms of clause (f) of Section 7 (1) of the Factories Act. 6. From the plain reading of the provisions of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act of 1946 and the Factories Act of 1948 it appears that the employer would include the manager appointed under the Factories Act in terms of clause (f) of Section 7 (1) of the Factories Act. The said employer has the jurisdiction to frame the charge, if he is nominated under the said clause by the occupier of the factory. The Labour Court has admitted that the manager, who had framed the charge, was so appointed under the said clause of the Factories Act but has held that he was not competent to frame the charge on the ground that he was not appointed under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders of the erstwhile company, which was taken over by the petitioner. 7. It appears that Rae-Bareilly Textile Factory in which the workman working previously was taken over by the Central Government to manage its affairs. The workmen employed in the erstwhile factory were taken over by the petitioner-company and they had the security of service under the law as regards their pay, gratuity, pensionary benefits etc. etc. from the appointed date they became the employees of the petitioner. If any Standing Order was framed by the erstwhile company with regard to the appointment of the manager, that would not override the provisions of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act of 1946. In fact the power of appointment of Manager was not contemplated by the schedule attached to the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act or by the provisions of the Factories Act. The only provisions, which has to be read in relation to a workman, is Section 2 (d) of the said Act. That being so, the persons, who has framed the charge against the workman does not seem to have lacked the authority in framing the charge against the workman. The contention raised to the contrary by the workman is not sound. The decision on preliminary issue given by the Labour Court is, therefore, not maintainable and must be reversed. However, this order would not prevent the Labour Court from going into the merits of .the charge or the enquiry, which was held against the workman. If it is satisfied that there was some defect on merit with regard to the enquiry or the charge. However, this order would not prevent the Labour Court from going into the merits of .the charge or the enquiry, which was held against the workman. If it is satisfied that there was some defect on merit with regard to the enquiry or the charge. If will not question the jurisdiction of the person, who had framed the charge or conducts the enquiry. The matter is left to the discretion of the Labour Court to be decided in accordance with law and no finding can be given by it about the validity or otherwise of the charge or the enquiry report. A limited question of jurisdiction of the person, who has framed the charge is only to be decided in this writ petition. 8. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed to the extent that any finding given by the Labour Court with regard to the lack of jurisdiction of the person, who has framed the charge is quashed. The proceedings before the Labour Court shall continue in accordance with law and shall be decided by the Labour Court under the provisions of law.