A. S. NAIDU, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in this writ application seek to challenge the legality, propriety and enforceability of Clause 19 of the Works standing Order framed by opposite party No. 3 certified by opposite party No. 1 vide order dated October 11, 1961 and confirmed by the appellate authority, i. e. , the District Judge, sambalpur on December 18, 1962, on the ground that the certificate issued is not in conformity with the provisions enumerated under the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946. The petitioners have prayed for declaring Clause 19 of the Works Standing orders (Annexure-1) as illegal and arbitrary as well as for other ancillary reliefs. ( 2 ) MR. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, forcefully submitted that clause 19 of the Works Standing Orders being contrary to the Model Standing Orders, the same should be declared as illegal and arbitrary. ( 3 ) TO appreciate the argument advanced, we referred to different Sections of the industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, hereinafter called as 'the Act', in short. Section 3 of the said Act deals with the procedure for submission of draft standing orders. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act stipulate the conditions for certification of the standing orders by the certifying Officer. Section 6 deals with appeals and stipulates that any employer, workmen, trade union or any other prescribed representative of the workmen aggrieved by the order of the Certifying Officer passed under section 5 (2) may prefer an appeal before the appellate authority and the decision of the appellate authority shall be final. In order to protect the interest of all the parties and to maintain fairness and reasonableness, the district Judge has been designated as the appellate authority under the Act. The Act is a self-contained one stipulating different provisions and remedies to the aggrieved parties. Admittedly, the Works Standing Order under Annexure-1 was framed by opposite party No. 3 as long back as in 1961. The same was certified by opposite party No. 1 by order dated October 11, 1961 and was confirmed by the appellate authority, i. e. , the District Judge, sambalpur on December 18, 1962. In the meanwhile 41 years have passed. After lapse of such a long stretch of time, Clause 19 of the standing Orders is sought to be challenged invoking pur writ jurisdiction. According to mr. In the meanwhile 41 years have passed. After lapse of such a long stretch of time, Clause 19 of the standing Orders is sought to be challenged invoking pur writ jurisdiction. According to mr. Patnaik not challenging the Standing Order earlier shall not be a ground to entertain the challenge made at a later stage. In support of such contention, Mr. Patnaik relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of S. K. Ghosh v. Chairman, O. S. E. B. , reported in AIR 1970 orissa 126 but then the facts of the said case are completely different. In the case at hand, admittedly, the aggrieved party moved the appellate authority i. e. the District Judge, sambalpur and the appellate authority as long back as on December 18, 1962 confirmed the order passed by the Certifying Officer and approved the Works Standing Order framed by opposite party No. 3. Clause 19 of the Standing orders reads as follows:"transfer: 19. Workmen shall be liable to be transferred from one department to another or from one job to another as specified by the Company. "