JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the certifying Officer-cum-Labour Commissioner, Assam in the, proceeding under Section 10(2) of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") holding that the petitioner-Company does not have standing order and accordingly under the Modal Standing Order, the age of retirement of its workmen should be 58 years. 2. The petitioner is a Private Ltd. Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and one of its factories is located at Makum Road Tinsukia, Assam. Its factory is engaged in manufacturing and fabrication of steel items of various descriptions including machineries. 3. As per the statement made in the writ petition (para-3), the petitioner Company initially was a Ltd. Company, but subsequently it was converted to Private Ltd. Company. As per the requirement of the Act, the petitioner-Company has its certified Standing Order which was certified by the certifying Officer-cum-Labour Commissioner, Assam on July 24, 1963. According to the petitioner, this certified Standing Order is in force since then, and its employees are governed by the terms and conditions of employment incorporated therein. The certified Standing Order of the Company provides the age of superannuation for the workmen on attaining the age of 55 years with the option to the Management to extend the same on its sole discretion. The petitioner has contended that as the workers in the factory are engaged in shitting of heavy iron materials, no workman remains fit to do hard work alter the age of 55 years and accordingly all the workers of the Company since its inception are being retired at the age of 55 years as per the certified Standing Order and the said system continued till the impugned order was passed by the respondent No. 2. 4. The respondent No. 3, i.e. the Steelworth Workers' Union represented by its General Secretary, by its letter dated April 2, 2004 made a prayer for modification of the Certified Standing Order of the, petitioner-Company so far the same relates to retirement age of the workers. Such a prayer was made to the respondent No. 2, i.e. the certifying Officer-cum-Labour Commissioner, Assam, Their basic ground for, modification of the retirement age was that, to get full provident fund and pensionary benefits and also E.S.I. benefits, one has to retire at the age of 58 years. Such a prayer was made to the respondent No. 2, i.e. the certifying Officer-cum-Labour Commissioner, Assam, Their basic ground for, modification of the retirement age was that, to get full provident fund and pensionary benefits and also E.S.I. benefits, one has to retire at the age of 58 years. The respondent No. 2, on receipt of the representation of the Union, issued the letter dated August 5, 2004 to the' petitioner-Company intimating about the prayer of the Union for modification of the age of superannuation of the workers fixing the matter on August 10, 2004 and it was insisted that in the meantime, the management of the petitioner would not retire the workmen at the age of 55 years, It is the grievance of the petitioner that such interim arrangement could not have been ordered and the matter ought not have been fixed on August 10, 2004 by issuing the letter on August 5, 2004. Be it stated here that after the aforesaid initial letter dated April 2, 2004, the respondent No. 3 Union by its application dated August 8, 2004 put forwarded its further proposal for amendment of the Certified Standing Order. 5. The petitioner-Company received the communication dated August 5, 2004 containing the above intimation on August 9, 2004 and it had no option than to make an application praying for adjournment of the proposed hearing on August 10, 2004 to any other date enabling he management to submit its objection to the demand of the Union. However, the respondent No. 2 rejected the prayer of the management and directed that the management must appear before him on August 10, 2004. The prayer of the petitioner was rejected by letter dated August 9, 2004 with the direction to the management to appear before the respondent No. 2 on August 10, 2004. However, on August 10, 2004 adjournment sought for by the management was granted on condition that the management would not insist on retirement of the workers on attaining the age of 55 yearn till finalization of the issue, By the said order dated August 10, 2004, the matter was fixed on August 27, 2004. 6. The petitioner-Company submitted its written objection on August 26, 2004 urging various grounds including that the apprehension of the petitioner that due to retirement at the age of 55 years they are deprived of the full provident fund, pensionary benefits etc. 6. The petitioner-Company submitted its written objection on August 26, 2004 urging various grounds including that the apprehension of the petitioner that due to retirement at the age of 55 years they are deprived of the full provident fund, pensionary benefits etc. is baseless and contended that the workmen were being paid their due retirement benefits. It was contended that due to the nature of the of work in the factory, no workmen could work beyond the age of 55 years. According to the petitioner, as per the provision of the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995, a member of the scheme becomes entitled to get monthly pension after rendering eligible service of 20 years or more or it retires, or otherwise ceases to be an employer before attaining the age of 58 years. Thus, the case of the Union was that of unnecessary apprehension on the part of the workmen. 7. The matter was heard by the respondent No. 2 on August 27, 2004. According to the petitioner the respondent No. 3, during the course of hearing, raised the plea for enhancement of the retirement age of the workmen to the age of 58 years, since they could not get provident fund unless they completed the age of 58 years. However, the Management pointed out the provision of the Pension Scheme, 1995 and submitted that the Union need not be apprehensive. According to the petitioner, the management was not intimated about the outcome of the hearing on August 27, 2004 and accordingly the management by its letter dated September 30, 2004 requested the respondent No. 2 to communicate the order, if any, passed by him. However, nothing was indicated, but on September 16, 2004, the Union submitted a photo copy of the order passed on September 4, 2004 raising the age of retirement of the workmen from 55 years to 58 years. The petitioner-Company procured the copy of the order by deputing its officer to the office of the respondent No. 2. 8. As per the impugned order dated September 4, 2004, the petitioner-Company has failed to adopt any duly certified Standing Order applicable to their Industry and,, accordingly the age of superannuation of the workers need to be determined as per Clause 3 of the Schedule-IB and Model Standing Orders on Additional Items Applicable to all Industries vide GSR 1040 dated September 12, 1984. Thus, in a nutshell, the respondent No. 2 by the impugned order dated September 4, 2004 has held that there being no Standing Order of the petitioner Company, the retirement or superannuation shall be on completion of 58 years of age of the workmen, as per the said Model Standing Order. 9. The petitioner has made a challenge to the said order dated September 4, 2004 on various grounds. According to the petitioner, 31 the procedure envisaged for modification of the Standing Order of an Industrial Establishment under Section 10 of the Act, has not been followed by the respondent No. 2. It has also been contended that the application made by the Union to the respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be an application under Section 10(2) of the Act. The petitioner has also found fault with the respondent No. 2 for the manner and method in which the impugned order has been passed. According to the petitioner the order has been passed in a high haste, arbitrarily and with total non-application of mind. 10. The petitioner has further contended that the finding of the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner does not have any Certified Standing Order, is totally baseless inasmuch as the said authority failed to consider the fact that the erstwhile Company of the petitioner, i.e. the Limited Company was converted to a Private Ltd. Company and even after such conversion, the Standing Order remained in force and everyone including the Union also understood in that manner and accordingly in its prayer also, they made a mention of the Standing Order seeking amendment of the same as regards the age of retirement. On merit of the case, the petitioner has contended that having regard to the nature of the work which the workman is required to perform, it is not reasonably practicable to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years and some stray instances of continuing some workmen beyond the age of 55 years about which the Union has pointed out, was only by way of extension in appropriate cases. 11. The respondent No. 3, i.e. the Union represented by its General Secretary has filed its affidavit in opposition denying the contentions raised in the writ petition. 11. The respondent No. 3, i.e. the Union represented by its General Secretary has filed its affidavit in opposition denying the contentions raised in the writ petition. According to the respondent, the workmen go on retirement at the age of 58 years and this practice is being followed for long and in tune with the same, it prayed for amendment of the Standing Order. It has been contended that since the management insisted for retirement of its workmen at the age of 55 years, the Union had to file the application before the respondent No. 2. As regards the procedural irregularities etc., the Union has denied the same. The Union's understanding of the impugned order is that the management having failed to adopt the duly certified Standing Order, the respondent No. 2 has come to the conclusion that pending incorporation of the clause of superannuation in the draft Standing Order or in modification proposal of the existing Standing Order, if any, the age of superannuation of the workers of the Company should be determined as per Clause 3 of Schedule-IB of the Model Standing Order. Thus, the Union has justified the enhancement of superannuation of age to 58 years. 12. The petitioner-Company has filed its affidavit in reply to the said affidavit in opposition filed by the Union. As regards the contention of the Union that the workmen were being retired at the age of 58 years, the petitioner has given the example of granting extension to some of the workmen and it has been contended that at no point of time, no workman was retired at the age of 58 years. The petitioner in its reply affidavit, has reiterated its stand in the writ petition. 13. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company produced the Standing Order of the petitioner-Company containing the seal and signature of the certifying Officer and Labour Commissioner, Assam dated July 24, 1963. Upon such filing of the certified Standing Order, the learned State counsel took time to obtain instruction and eventually the, respondent No. 2 has filed its affidavit in opposition on May 8, 2006. The basic contention raised in the affidavit in opposition is that, although the Company which was earlier Limited Company had its Standing. Upon such filing of the certified Standing Order, the learned State counsel took time to obtain instruction and eventually the, respondent No. 2 has filed its affidavit in opposition on May 8, 2006. The basic contention raised in the affidavit in opposition is that, although the Company which was earlier Limited Company had its Standing. Order duly certified by the certifying Officer, but when the Company got converted to that of Private Ltd. Company, same was not intimated to the certifying Officer and as such, the records available in the Office of the. respondent No. 2 do not contain any certified Standing Order of the converted Company. The respondent has justified the impugned order dated September 4, 2004 on the ground that the same is only by way of interim arrangement till. the petitioner-Company adopts a regular and permanent Standing Order. According to the respondent No. 2, the petitioner-Company does not have any certified Standing Order. In paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit it has been. contended that the application submitted by the Union on April 2, 2004 (Annexure-A) to the writ petition was not dealt with under Section 10 of the Act and the impugned order has been passed when it was revealed that the petitioner-Company does not have certified Standing Order. By the impugned order it has been simply directed to follow the rules of Model Standing Orders. In paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit, the respondent No. 2 specifically contended that the impugned order is only by way of interim arrangement in exercise of power under Section 12(A) of the Act. 14. The petitioner-Company has filed its affidavit in reply to the said affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner, mere conversion of the status of the Company does not mean that the certified Standing Order adopted by the Company ceased to have its effect, but rather continued to have its force governing the terms and conditions of the workmen. Pointing out to the stand of the respondent No. 2 in his counter affidavit that the order was passed under Section 12(A) of the Act, on the other hand, the impugned order dated September 4, 2004 itself having stated the same to be under Section 10(2) of the Act, the petitioner has contended that as per the own stand of the respondent No. 2, there is inherent contradiction. They have further contended that even if it is assumed that the petitioner-Company does not have any standing order of its own, the respondent No. 2 could not have been brought under the provision of Clause 3 of the Schedule-IB of Model Standing Orders being applicable only to the Industrial Establishments under the control of the Central Government and for the Industries under the State there is already in existence of Standing Orders, namely the Assam Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rule, 1947. 15. Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. I. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument forcefully argued that the entire exercise carried out by the respondent No. 2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and in total violation of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that the procedure adopted by the respondent No. 2 towards passing the impugned order is opposed to the established procedure as per the provisions of the Act. He also strongly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in view of the inherent contradictions in the stand of the respondent No. 2 towards justifying the same. 16. Ms. A. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 on the other hand made submissions justifying the impugned order dated September 4, 2004. She submitted that the order being based on relevant materials, the writ Court will be slow to interfere with the same. Mr. D.C. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Bhattacharya appearing for the respondent No. 2 made submissions in tune with the stand in the counter affidavit. He submitted that in absence of certified Standing Order adopted by the petitioner-Company there was no other option for the respondent No. 2 than to pass the impugned order on the basis of the Clause 3 of the Schedule-IB of Modal Standing Orders on additional items which is applicable to all Industries. Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State counsel also made submissions in tune with the submissions made by Mr. Mahanta. 17. The entire proceeding initiated by the. respondent No. 2 which eventually culminated to the impugned order dated September 4, 2004 was on the basis of Annexure-A application dated April 2, 2004 addressed to the respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 3 Union. The, application was on the subject of "Modification of Certified Standing Order in force at Steels Worth Pvt. Ltd. Tinsukia, Assam". respondent No. 2 which eventually culminated to the impugned order dated September 4, 2004 was on the basis of Annexure-A application dated April 2, 2004 addressed to the respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 3 Union. The, application was on the subject of "Modification of Certified Standing Order in force at Steels Worth Pvt. Ltd. Tinsukia, Assam". The contents of the letter are as follows: We have the honour to inform you that the certified Standing order which is in force at Steels Worth Pvt. Ltd. is a very old one enacted more than 30 years ago. We feel it needs to be modified considering the present change of circumstances of working conditions of Industrial workers, particularly the age of retirement from the service. It is to be mentioned that to get the full P.F. and pensionary benefit & E.S.I. benefits one has to retire from the service at the age of 58 years. Most of the employees working under the private or public sector, their retirement age is 58 years or more. Although the management of Steels Worth Pvt. Ltd., Tinsukia retiring their employees at the age of 58 years as per P.F. record but the management is insisting our members to take retirement at the age of 55 years quoting the clause of certified Standing order. Therefore, you are requested to take appropriate steps to modify the said certified Standing order by enhancing the retirement age to 60 years. Your kind consideration and early action would highly be appreciated. Thanking you. 18. From the above, it will be seen that the Union also recognized the certified Standing Order centering around which the controversy has arisen. According to the Union also, which is in tune with the Contention of the petitioner, the Standing order of the petitioner-Company was in existence for the last 30 years. The application was made in 2004 and the certified Standing order bears the seal and signature of the certifying officer-cum-Labour Commissioner with the date July 24, 1963. Thus, the Union itself recognised the fact of existence of the certified Standing order and by its application dated April 2, 2004 wanted modification of the same by enhancing the retirement age of 55 years to 60 years. In their proposal for amendment vide letter dated August 8, 2004 also, they reiterated the same stand. 19. Thus, the Union itself recognised the fact of existence of the certified Standing order and by its application dated April 2, 2004 wanted modification of the same by enhancing the retirement age of 55 years to 60 years. In their proposal for amendment vide letter dated August 8, 2004 also, they reiterated the same stand. 19. On receipt of the said application dated April 2, 2004, the respondent No. 3 also issued notice to the petitioner-Company on the same subject asking it to submit its objection. But before the matter could be adjudicated upon, even for interim purpose, the petitioner-Company was instructed not to insist on retirement of workmen at the age of 55 years as contemplated in the certified Standing order. The notice was issued on August 5. 2004 which reads as follows: Government of Assam Office of the Labour Commissioner: Assam Gopinath Nagar, Guwahati-16 No. LR. 23/2000/Pt. I/7328/Dtd. Guwahati the August 5, 2004 From: Shri S.S. Hojai, Labour Commissioner-cum-Certifying Officer, Assam, Guwahati-16 To: The Manager, M/s. Steels Worth (P) Ltd. Tinsukia Sub: Modification of Certified Standing Orders Applicable to M/s. Steels Worth Private Ltd. Dear Sir, I am to inform you that the workers of your establishment represented by the General Secretary of Steels Worth Worker's Union, have submitted a proposal for amending the provision relating to the age of superannuation of the workers. The copy of the said proposal is enclosed herewith for your ready reference. In view of the said proposal mooted by the workers, it is deemed expedient to take up the issue for hearing for a decision which is scheduled to be held at my office chamber on August 10, 2004 at 11 A.M. You are, therefore, advised/instructed to be present at the said hearing process along with a copy of the certified standing order on the appropriate date and time without fail. In view of the proposed hearing on August 10, 2004 at this office, you are instructed not to insist on retirement of workmen at the age of 55 years as contemplated in your certified standing order. (emphasis added) Yours faithfully, For Labour Commissioner-cum-Certifying Officer, Assam, Guwahati-16 20. From the aforesaid letter also, it is seen that the instruction was not to insist on retirement of the workmen at the age of 55 years as per the provisions of the certified Standing order. (emphasis added) Yours faithfully, For Labour Commissioner-cum-Certifying Officer, Assam, Guwahati-16 20. From the aforesaid letter also, it is seen that the instruction was not to insist on retirement of the workmen at the age of 55 years as per the provisions of the certified Standing order. Thus, till the issuance of this, letter dated August 5, 2005, there was no denial on the part of the respondent No. 3 that the petitioner-Company has its own standing order. The petitioner-Company in response to the notice of the respondent No. 3 also, proceeded in that manner justifying its stand not to go for any amendment in the Standing order so far as same relates to the retirement age. 21. In Annexure-C letter dated August 8, 2004 addressed to the respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 3 Union, the proposal for modification/amendment of the certified Standing order was forwarded as desired by the respondent No. 2. In the proposal also, the Union referred to the certified Standing order of the petitioner-Company with the indication of the clause in respect of which it prayed for modification. They also indicated the reasons for modification. Thereafter, by notice dated August 9, 2004, the intimation was given to the petitioner-Company rejecting the prayer for adjournment of hearing of the case. However, by order dated August 10, 2004 adjournment was granted fixing the hearing on August 27, 2004 reiterating the earlier stand and on condition that the retirement of the workers on attaining the age of 55 years shall not be insisted upon till finalization of the issue. 22. Although the petitioner has not annexed the copy of the objection filed by it opposing the prayer for modification of the particular clause in the certified Standing order, but the learned Counsel for the petitioner produced the copy of the same dated August 26, 2004. On perusal of the same it appears that the management in tune with the assertions made in the writ petition raised objection to the proposal for enhancement of the age of retirement. They pleaded that the apprehension of the Union that because of retirement at the age of 55 years the workmen are not entitled to full service benefit, is not correct. They pleaded that the apprehension of the Union that because of retirement at the age of 55 years the workmen are not entitled to full service benefit, is not correct. Thus, the entire proceeding proceeded on the basis of the recognition given to the certified Standing order of the petitioner-Company and centering around the issue as to whether the proposal for amendment of the clause in respect of retirement age should be acceded to or not. 23. As per the provision of Section 3 of the Act, within six months from the date on which the Act becomes applicable to an Industrial Establishment, the employer shall submit the certifying officer five copies of the draft Standing order proposed by him for adoption in his Central establishment. Section4 lays down the conditions for certification of Standing orders and Section 5 provides for certification of Standing orders. As per the requirement of Section 8 of the Act, a copy of all standing orders as finally certified under this Act shall be filed by the Certifying Officer in a register in prescribed form maintained for the purpose, and the Certifying Officers shall furnish a copy thereof to any person applying therefore on payment of the prescribed tee. As per the provision of Section 10 of the Act, standing orders finally certified under this Act shall not, except on agreement between the employer and the workmen or a trade union or other representative body of the workmen be liable to modification until the expiry of six months from the date on which the standing orders or the last modifications thereof came into operation. 24. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 provides that subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1), an employer or workman or a trade union or other representative body of the workmen may apply to the Certifying Officer to have the standing orders modified and such application shall be accompanied by five copies of the modifications proposed to be made, and where such modifications are proposed to be made by agreement between the employer and the workmen or a trade union or other representative body of the workman a certified copy of that agreement shall be filed along with the application. 25. 25. It is in the above context the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No. 3 Union although sought for modification of the certified Standing order in existence and in force of the petitioner's Company, but failed to comply with the requirements of the Sub-section (2) of Section 10 inasmuch as it failed to furnish the required copies of the modifications proposed. It was also submitted that irrespective of such failure on the part of the Union to comply with the requirements of Section 10 of the Act, the respondent No. 2 having initiated the proceeding under Section 10(2) of the Act, could not have justified the impugned order falling back on the provision of Section 12A of the Act. 26. From the aforesaid provisions of the Act, it will be seen that the petitioner-Company got the certification of its Standing order and the same continued to hold the field irrespective of the change of status of the Company from Limited Company to Private Ltd. Company. The respondent No. 3 Union also followed the same and in fact, the terms and conditions of the service of the workmen continued to be governed by the said Standing order. Even the proceeding with which the present writ petition is concerned was also initiated and completed on the basis of the understanding that the petitioner-Company has its own Standing order. However, the respondent No. 2 by his impugned order dated September 4, 2004 has held that the petitioner-Company failed to adopt any duly certified Standing order applicable to their Industry. He disbelieved the Xerox copy of the Standing order which according to him was without any seal of the office of the certifying officer. It is not discernible as to who had produced the Xerox copy of the certified Standing order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced the original certified Standing order containing the official seal and signature of the certifying officer dated July 24, 1963. The original copy as was produced before the Court was handed over to the learned State counsel to obtain instruction and it was on that basis the respondent No. 2 has filed the affidavit in opposition on May 8, 2006 through his appointed counsel. 27. The original copy as was produced before the Court was handed over to the learned State counsel to obtain instruction and it was on that basis the respondent No. 2 has filed the affidavit in opposition on May 8, 2006 through his appointed counsel. 27. Thus from the above, it will be seen that the findings recorded in the impugned order dated September 4, 2004 that the petitioner-Company has failed to adopt any duly certified Standing order is not correct and contrary to the records. If the certified Standing order of the Company still holds the field it was incumbent on the part of the certifying officer follow the procedure laid down towards modification of the same, but instead he has held that in absence of any duly certified standing order adopted by the petitioner-Company and also in absence of any draft Standing orders, the age of superannuation of the workers should be determined as per Clause 3 of Schedule I(B) of Modal Standing orders on additional items applicable to all industries vide GSR 1040 dated September 14, 1984. 28. Apart from the fact that the petitioner-Company has its duly certified Standing order even otherwise also, the Model Standing order adopted vide GSR 1040 on September 12, 1984 cannot be made applicable to the instant case in view of the fact that the same is applicable to the Industrial Establishment under the control of the Central Government. The Industry in question being under the control of the State Government, even assuming that the petitioner-Company does not have its own Standing order, then in that case also, it is the Assam Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1947 which will have application. In this particular Rule, there is no indication of any superannuation age. 29. Let us now examine the clause, which the respondent No. 2 has applied in his impugned order dated September 4, 2004 so as to come to the conclusion that in terms of the said clause, the retirement age of the workmen should be 58 years. Clause 3 under Schedule I(B) is the substitution by GSR 1040 dated September 12, 1984. Let us now examine the clause, which the respondent No. 2 has applied in his impugned order dated September 4, 2004 so as to come to the conclusion that in terms of the said clause, the retirement age of the workmen should be 58 years. Clause 3 under Schedule I(B) is the substitution by GSR 1040 dated September 12, 1984. On a reference to the same, it is seen that the age of retirement or superannuation of workman shall be as may be agreed upon between the employer and the workmen under an agreement or as specified in, a settlement or award which is binding both the workman and the employer. Where there is no such agreed age, retirement or superannuation shall be on completion of 58 years of age by the workman. This particular clause is under, Schedule I(B) under the head "Model Standing Orders on Additional Items Applicable to All Industries" and the same is under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946 (in short the Rules). 30. On a reference to the rules, it is seen that the said rule is applicable to the Industrial establishments under the control of the Central Government. Same is not the case on hand. Admittedly, the petitioner's Company is not under the control of the Central Government and it being an Industry in the State, it is the Assam Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1947 which alone is applicable. Thus, the respondent No. 2 could not have in fact, modified the certified Standing order of the petitioner-Company falling back on the provision of the model Standing Orders on Additional Items under Schedule I(B) of the Rules. Even if it is held that there is no certified Standing order of the petitioner-Company then also it is the provisions of the Assam Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1947 which will be applicable to the case. 31. Apart from the above, the contradictory stand of the respondent No. 2 is explicit on the face of it. Even if it is held that there is no certified Standing order of the petitioner-Company then also it is the provisions of the Assam Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1947 which will be applicable to the case. 31. Apart from the above, the contradictory stand of the respondent No. 2 is explicit on the face of it. Although the impugned order has been passed on September 4, 2004 on an adjudication upon the application purportedly made under Section 10(2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, but in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, a specific plea has been taken in paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit, that the impugned order is an interim order passed in exercise of power under Section 12A of the Act. Nowhere in the proceeding or in the impugned order dated September 4, 2004 it was indicated that the matter was being adjudicated only by way of interim measure invoking the provision of Section 12A of the Act. Section 12A of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 to 12, for the period commencing on the date on which the Act becomes applicable to an industrial establishment and ending with the date on which the standing orders as finally certified under the Act come into operation under Section 7 in that establishment, the prescribed model standing orders shall be deemed to be adopted in that establishment, and the provisions of Section 9, Sub-section (2) of Section 13 and Section 13A shall apply to such model standing orders as they apply to the standing orders so certified. 32. Firstly, the proceeding was never under Section 12A of the Act and it was never specified that the impugned order is by way of temporary application of the Model Standing Orders. As noted above, even if any temporary application of standing orders is to be made, such standing orders cannot be the model standing orders on additional items as envisaged under the Central Rules. Further the entire matter having been adjudicated upon under Section 10(2) of the Act as is evident from the order itself, the respondent No. 2 being confronted with original Central Standing order containing his seal and signature, cannot take the plea that the impugned order is only by way of interim measure applying the provision of Section 12A of the Act. 33. 33. The impugned action of the respondent No. 2 will have to be judged by the reasons so mentioned in the impugned order and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Mahinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner [1978] 2 SCR 272 otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. 34. I have also considered the plea of the respondent-Union, that in reality the petitioner-Company continued the workmen in, its employment upto the age of 58/60 years. But on verification of the records and the stand of the petitioner in its affidavit in reply, it is seen that some workmen were granted only extension of service and that by itself cannot be said to be enhancement of retirement age. 35. Mr. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court as in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Krishna Kant and Ors. and State of U.P. v. Harban Sahai and Ors. [1998] 2 SCR 1056. I have gone through both the decisions. I am of the considered opinion that the decisions are of no help to the case of the respondent No. 2 in view of the facts which have emerged about which discussions have been made above and also in view of the findings recorded above. 36. Apart from the above, the manner and method in which the respondent No. 2 acted in the matter and the high haste which has been shown in the entire proceeding also stare on the face of it. Firstly, the Union proceeded in the matter with the understanding that the certified standing order of the company holds the field and the respondent No. 2 also insisted in that manner and asked the petitioner-Company to respond in that manner. No indication was given at any point of time that the petitioner-Company does not have its duly certified standing order. However, it is only in the final order dated September 4, 2004, impugned in this proceeding, such a finding has been returned by the respondent No. 2 which is not borne on record. No indication was given at any point of time that the petitioner-Company does not have its duly certified standing order. However, it is only in the final order dated September 4, 2004, impugned in this proceeding, such a finding has been returned by the respondent No. 2 which is not borne on record. The petitioner-Company has its own duly certified standing order and the same has continued to hold the field irrespective of the change of its status from Limited Company to Private Ltd. Company. The certified standing order adopted way back in 1963 (July 24, 1963) could not have been set at naught in the manner and method in which the same has been done by the respondent No. 2. 37. For the aforesaid reasons, discussions and conclusions, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order dated September 4, 2004 is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, it is set aside and quashed. This will however, not preclude the respondent Union to proceed in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 38. The writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.