( 1 ) THE petitioners in these two writ petitions have been working as operator and helper respectively in the first respondent-Corporation. On the allegation of theft of a starter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Corporation against the petitioners. In the said proceedings charges framed against the petitioners were held to be proved. On the basis of this finding the disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment of fine of Rs. 100/- each on the petitioners. This fine appears to have been paid by the petitioners. ( 2 ) THEREAFTER, the Managing Director enhanced the punishment by reducing the pay scales of the petitioners to the minimum in exercise of power of review as per the circular and Annexure-1 attached to the standing orders. These orders have been questioned by the petitioners in these writ petitions. ( 3 ) SRI K. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the standing orders which are framed pursuant to the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 does not confer any power of review on the Managing Director and therefore, the order passed by the Managing Director in exercise of the power of review is without jurisdiction. In support of this contention he has brought to my notice the standing orders framed by the respondent-Corporation which were certified by the Competent Authority constituted under the industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 to show that no power of review has been conferred upon the Managing Director to review the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Clause 23 (d) of the certified Standing Orders of the Corporation reads as follows. "officers authorised to impose the punishment shall be notified separately and intimation shall be sent to the Trade Union concerned". From the reading of above said clause it is clear that the respondent-Corporation may notify the officers authorised to impose punishment in the event the charge framed against a delinquent employee is proved. Clause 23 (f) of the standing orders reads as follows:- "the aggrieved workman may appeal against the order of the Competent Authority to the appellate Authority that may be specified in that behalf within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the memo awarding punishment. The Appellate Authority shall dispose of the appeal within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the appeal. The Appellate Authority shall dispose of the appeal within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the appeal. A workman who is not satisfied with the orders of Appellate Authority may submit a mercy petition to the Managing director within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Appellate authority. The Managing Director shall dispose of the petition not later than 45 days from the date of the receipt". Under this clause the Appellate Authority, to consider the appeal preferred against the order of the Competent Authority, may be specified. Under these two provisions the respondent-Corporation may by notification specify the Competent Authority to impose punishment and the Appellate Authority. Since the power of review of the orders has not been provided under the standing orders, the respondent-Corporation has no power to specify the reviewing Authority by notification. The notification at Annexure-1 attached to the standing orders specifies three authorities such as. (i) Authority empowered to impose punishment; (ii) Appellate Authority; (iii) Reviewing Authority. Insofar as (i) and (ii) are concerned, standing orders itself authorise the Corporation to specify the authorities. But, insofar as the Reviewing Authority is concerned, no power of review has been provided in the standing orders. In the absence of such power of review in the standing orders notifying or specifying the Reviewing Authority in Annexure-1 is without authority of law. Therefore, the notification at Annexure-1 attached to the standing orders specifying managing Director as a Reviewing Authority which is not a part of the certified standing order is invalid. ( 4 ) IN the result, I pass the following order:- 1. Writ petitions are allowed; 2. The impugned orders imposing the punishment reducing the pay scale of the petitioners to the minimum are quashed. 3. Rule made absolute