JUDGEMENT: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act owning six factories. The Head Office of the petitioner is situated at Kozhikode. The six factories are registered under the Factories Act. The Head Office is registered under the Kerala Shops and 5 Commercial Establishments Act and not registered under the Factories Act. In respect of the factories, standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act had been framed. That standing order was not 10 applicable to the employees of the Head, Office. The petitioner submitted an application for modification of the standing orders before the certifying officer under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, who l' allowed the same by Exhibit P-l order. As a ~ result of the modification, the employees of the Head Office also were covered by the standing orders. The 3rd respondent here, a Union of the employees of the Head Office, filed an appeal against Exhibit P-l order of the certifying officer. That appeal was considered by the Appellate Authoritx who passed Exhibit P-7 order, whereby Exhibit P-l order of the certifying officer was set aside on the ground that the Head Office not being an industrial establishment as defined under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, the Act cannot be made applicable to that establishment and therefore the Act cannot be made applicable to the staff working in the Head Office of the Company. Exhibit P-7 order is under challenge before me. 2. The petitioner's contention is that the Head Office being an integral part of the factories themselves, it forms part of the factories and therefore it cannot be held to be a separate establishment unconnected with the factories which are industrial establishments as defined under the Act. Hence, according to the petitioner, Exhibit P-I order is perfectly valid o and proper and therefore Exhibit P-7 is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 3. This is opposed by the counsel for the 3rd respondent. According to the 3rd respondent, the Head Office admittedly being a 5 shop registered under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and the same having been excluded from registration under the Factories Act, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the Head Office is part of the o Factories Act. According to the 3rd respondent, the Head Office admittedly being a 5 shop registered under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and the same having been excluded from registration under the Factories Act, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the Head Office is part of the o Factories Act. A shop registered under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act does not answer the definition of 'industrial establishment' under the Industrial 5 Employment (Standing Orders) Act and, therefore the Act and consequently the standing orders framed under the Act cannot be made applicable to the employees of the Head Office, is the contention raised by the counsel for the 3rd respondent. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Admittedly, the Head Office of the petitioner is an establishment registered under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. It is also not disputed before me that while registering the factories 11 owned by the company, the Head Office has been excluded from the purview of that registration under the Factories Act. Therefore, clearly, the Head Office is not a factory as defined in the Factories Act. Going by the 1 definition of 'industrial establishment' in the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, the Head Office is clearly excluded from the purview of the said definition. When an establishment is not an industrial establishment as defined under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, the Establishment and the employees of that establishment cannot be held to be covered under the said Act. If the establishment is not covered under the Act, the certifying officer under the Act does not get jurisdiction to certify standing orders as applicable to that establishment. Therefore, I do [) not find any infirmity in Exhibit P-7 order whatsoever. That being so, there is no merit in the challenge against Exhibit P-7 order. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioner to seek inclusion of the Head Office also for the purpose of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act after getting the Head Office also registered as a factory under the Factories Act.