JUDGMENT : F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent, dated June 4, received by the petitioners on July 6, 1996 bearing reference No. B/4274/95 and quash the same and consequently remand the matter back to the first respondent for disposal in accordance with law. 2. By the impugned proceedings, the first respondent, as Certifying Officer of the Standing Orders under the provision of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, set the union ex parte in the certification proceedings of the Draft Standing Orders submitted by the second respondent-management and proceeded to certify the same by making certain modifications in tune with the provisions contained in the Model Standing Orders. 3. According to the petitioner, after the submission of the Draft Standing Orders by the second respondent on June 18, 1995, the petitioner filed its objections on December 4, 1995 and that while they made their representation on one or two hearings, they could not attend the hearings on April 16, 1996 and May 6, 1996 for certain stated reasons. 4. According to the petitioner, during the relevant time, there was negotiation between the petitioner and the second respondent-management for a comprehensive settlement on all issues and in the said circumstances, an -adjournment was sought for, for the hearing posted On April 16, 1996, while due to ill health of the General Secretary, once again adjournment was sought for on May 6, 1996. The petitioner would therefore contend that when the Certified Standing Orders will govern the service conditions of the workmen employed in the second respondent-management and the various clauses once certified by the first respondent, would bind the parties till appropriate modification is made by initiating necessary proceedings under the Act, the first respondent should have given fair opportunity to the petitioners before carrying out the certification as has been done under the impugned proceedings. 5. Sri P.D. Adikesavalu, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, would however, vehemently contend that when in spite of several opportunities given to the: petitioner, since they did not make proper representation before the first respondent, there was every justification for the first respondent in proceeding with the certification of Standing Orders submitted by the second respondent. 6. 5. Sri P.D. Adikesavalu, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, would however, vehemently contend that when in spite of several opportunities given to the: petitioner, since they did not make proper representation before the first respondent, there was every justification for the first respondent in proceeding with the certification of Standing Orders submitted by the second respondent. 6. The learned counsel also drew my attention to Sub-clauses (g) and (h) of Clause 27 of the Settlement u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and contended that since the petitioner agreed to co-operate with the management to have a Certified Standing Orders at the earliest with or without modification of the clauses contained therein, the impugned proceedings should not be interfered with. 7. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner merits acceptance. As Certified Standing Orders would govern the condition of service of the workmen employed in an establishment and for such certification, the Act provides for the procedure to be followed, wherein the workmen are to be heard before giving seal of approval by way of certification for the Draft Standing Orders submitted by the management, such opportunity should have its real meaning and the ex parte certification of Standing Orders cannot be allowed to take place as a matter of course. 8. In the case on hand after the filing of the Draft Standing Orders on June 18, 1995, the petitioner submitted their objection on November 14, 1995. The petitioner appeared to have approached the first respondent with a specific request on January 29, 1996 for a hearing to both the parties before the certification is done. Thereafter, the first respondent fixed the hearing on February 19, 1996, which was adjourned to March 18, 1996 at the instance of the petitioner. It transpires that there were negotiations between the petitioner and the second respondent on various other issues which culminated in a settlement on November 17, 1997. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner appears to be true and in such circumstances, the stand that they sought for an adjournment in the month of April 1996 before the first respondent in the light of the negotiations taking place between the petitioner and the second respondent deserves due consideration. 9. The next hearing date was May 6, 1996. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner appears to be true and in such circumstances, the stand that they sought for an adjournment in the month of April 1996 before the first respondent in the light of the negotiations taking place between the petitioner and the second respondent deserves due consideration. 9. The next hearing date was May 6, 1996. It is stated that the General Secretary was not well and therefore a request was made before the first respondent for an adjournment. In all fairness, I feel due opportunity should have been given to the petitioner. Further, after this writ petition was entertained, an interim injunction was granted and the injunction operates even as on this date. Therefore, the impugned order has not come into operation till this date. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, the first respondent can be directed to hold an enquiry afresh in respect of the certification proceedings of the Draft Standing Orders submitted by the second respondent by fixing some time frame. With that view, while setting aside the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated June 4, 1996, in proceedings No. B/4274/95, the first respondent is directed to proceed with the certification proceedings in respect of Draft Standing Orders submitted by the second respondent on June 18, 1995 by giving due opportunity to the petitioner as well as the second respondent. The petitioner shall co-operate in participating with the proceedings without asking for any adjournment on unnecessary grounds. The first respondent shall conclude the proceedings within four months from the date of production of copy of this order. 10. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. Consequently, the connected W.M.P. Nos. are closed.