JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. P. K. Roy, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. A. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. Mr. K. Kalita, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Oil India Limited and Mr. B. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Proforma Respondent No.3. None appears on behalf of the Proforma Respondent No.2. 2. The Petitioners herein have assailed the order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati in P.F. (Appeal) No.06/2017. 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the Respondent No.1, during the course of operation, engaged many contractors for execution of various works at various locations. Contract labourers were engaged by those contractors for execution of such contract works. Such contractors were required to deduct and deposit the PF of those contract labourers along with the employees’ contribution which is later reimbursed by the Respondent No.1 Company on submission of bills by the contractors. 4. It is the case of the Respondent No.1 herein that having received frequent complaints regarding irregular/non-deposit of PF subscription of those contract labourers by some of the contractors, the Respondent No.1 Company in order to safeguard the interest of the contract labourers obtained the PF Code from the Competent Authority and the effective date was fixed by the PF Authority as on 01.08.2006. 5. The Proforma Respondent No.2 Association filed a complaint that 350 or more contract labourers were yet to be enrolled under the statutory scheme of Provident Fund. Upon receipt of such complaint, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tinsukia initiated an enquiry under Para 26B of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (for short, 'the Scheme'). Consequently, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tinsukia issued a notice under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952'). Subsequent thereto, an order was passed on 17.10.2014 under the Act of 1952 thereby levying PF dues of Rs.1,67,09,353/- upon the Respondent No.1 Company. 6. The Respondent No.1 Company thereafter preferred a review application under Section 7B of the Act of 1952 before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tinsukia on 07.01.2015. Subsequent thereto, an order was passed on 17.10.2014 under the Act of 1952 thereby levying PF dues of Rs.1,67,09,353/- upon the Respondent No.1 Company. 6. The Respondent No.1 Company thereafter preferred a review application under Section 7B of the Act of 1952 before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tinsukia on 07.01.2015. On the ground that there was a delay in filing the said review application and further that the application was not filed in the format as required vide an order dated 08.01.2015, the review application filed by the Respondent No.1 was rejected. 7. Being aggrieved, the Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.258/2015. The learned Coordinate Bench vide an order dated 23.01.2015 set aside the said order dated 08.01.2015 and directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, SRO, Tinsukia to take on board the review petition filed by the Respondent No.1 and thereafter decide the same on merit after giving due opportunity of hearing to the necessary parties. Vide the said order dated 23.01.2015, the learned Coordinate Bench further had set aside the order dated 19.01.2015 passed under Section 8F of the Act of 1952. 8. In pursuance thereto, the review petition was taken up by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and vide an order dated 10.06.2016, the review application was rejected on the ground that the Respondent No.1 failed to produce any new/relevant records and also failed to undertake verification of the details of the contractual workers during the last one year and four months. On the very date, the Chief Manager (Legal) of the Oil India Limited submitted an application that the said order dated 10.06.2016 was passed without considering the submission so made by the Respondent No.1. Pursuant thereto, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, N.E. Region vide an order dated 15.06.2016 again upheld the order dated 17.10.2014 and rejected the review application. 9. It is under such circumstances, the Respondent No.1 preferred an Appeal under Section 7-I of the Act of 1952 not only challenging the order dated 17.10.2014, but also the orders dated 10.06.2016 and 15.06.2016 by which the review applications were dismissed. 10. 9. It is under such circumstances, the Respondent No.1 preferred an Appeal under Section 7-I of the Act of 1952 not only challenging the order dated 17.10.2014, but also the orders dated 10.06.2016 and 15.06.2016 by which the review applications were dismissed. 10. The learned Appellate Authority, i.e. the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati vide the impugned order dated 07.09.2018 allowed the Appeal thereby setting aside the orders dated 10.06.2016 and 15.06.2016 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Guwahati in the review petition and again remanded the matter back to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner with a direction to consider the review petition afresh for conclusively determining the names, numbers and periods of engagement of the concerned contract labourers by calling for relevant records regarding names and periods of engagement of the concerned contractual labourers from the concerned contractors. The Respondent No.1 Company was also directed to submit to the concerned EPF Authority, the names and addresses of the concerned contractors and the parties were directed to appear before the concerned EPF Authority on 08.10.2018. 11. Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the learned Appellate Authority in P.F. (Appeal) No.06/2017, the present writ petition was filed by the Petitioners herein. 12. The record reveals that vide an order dated 02.09.2019, notice was issued and the further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 07.09.2018 passed in P.F. (Appeal) No.06/2017 was stayed. The records further reveal that in the meantime, the Respondent No.1 as well as the Proforma Respondent No.3 have filed an affidavit-in-opposition. 13. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has given an anxious consideration to their respective submissions. 14. The material facts for the purpose of adjudication of the instant writ petition as discussed already hereinabove would show that an order was passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 17.10.2014 thereby imposing a liability upon the Respondent No.1. Pursuant thereto, a review application was filed under Section 7B of the Act of 1952. The orders which were assailed before the Appellate Tribunal were not only the original order dated 17.10.2014, but also the orders which were passed thereby rejecting the review application which were the orders dated 10.06.2016 and 15.06.2016. 15. Pursuant thereto, a review application was filed under Section 7B of the Act of 1952. The orders which were assailed before the Appellate Tribunal were not only the original order dated 17.10.2014, but also the orders which were passed thereby rejecting the review application which were the orders dated 10.06.2016 and 15.06.2016. 15. At this stage, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal in terms with Section 7-I of the Act of 1952. The said Section being relevant is reproduced herein under:- “ 7-I. Appeals to Tribunal. —(1) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by the Central Government or any authority, under the proviso to sub-section (3), or sub-section (4), of section 1, or section 3, or sub-section (1) of section 7A, or section 7B [except an order rejecting an application for review referred to in sub-section (5) thereof], or section 7C, or section 14B, may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such notification or order. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed.” 16. From a perusal of Sub-section (1) of Section 7-I of the Act of 1952, it would show that any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by the Central Government, or an order under the proviso to Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) of Section 1, or Section 3, or Sub-section (1) of Section 7A, or Section 7B, or Section 7C, or Section 14B, may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal against such notification or order. The said Section however excludes a challenge to an order passed under Section 7B of the Act of 1952 when the review application is rejected. The same is in consonance with Section 7B(5) of the Act of 1952 and this very Sub-section is reproduced herein under:- ” 7B(5) No appeal shall lie against the order of the officer rejecting an application for review, but an appeal under this Act shall lie against an order passed under review as if the order passed under review were the original order passed by him under section 7A.” 17. Taking into account that the review application in the instant case filed by the Respondent No.1 was rejected vide the orders dated 10.06.2016 and 15.06.2016, the learned Appellate Authority had no authority or jurisdiction to decide the orders dated 10.06.2016 and 15.06.2016. The learned Appellate Authority, therefore, ought to have only decided the order dated 17.10.2014 which was the original order as the same is permissible under Section 7-I of the Act of 1952. However, surprisingly, the learned Appellate Tribunal has only decided the legality and validity of the orders dated 10.06.2016 and 15.06.2016 which the learned Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to exercise. 18. It is further relevant to observe that the learned Appellate Tribunal did not decide the original order dated 17.10.2014 which was also the subject matter of challenge. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the learned Appellate Tribunal has failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law by not deciding the legality or validity of the order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tinsukia, and on the other hand, has exercised the jurisdiction not conferred upon it by law by deciding the legality and validity of the orders dated 10.06.2016 and 15.06.2016. 19. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.09.2018 is required to be interfered with. 20. Consequently, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The impugned order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, i.e. the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati is set aside and quashed. (ii) The learned Appellate Authority, i.e. the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati is directed to decide the Appeal being P.F. (Appeal) No.06/2017 only to the extent of the legality and validity of the order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the learned Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tinsukia. (iii) This Court has also duly taken note of the submission of Mr. B. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Proforma Respondent No.3 to the effect that the members of the Association for whom he represents have been deprived of their dues. (iii) This Court has also duly taken note of the submission of Mr. B. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Proforma Respondent No.3 to the effect that the members of the Association for whom he represents have been deprived of their dues. Considering the above, this Court directs the learned Appellate Authority, i.e. the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati to decide the said Appeal being P.F. (Appeal) No.06/2017 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date the parties appear before the learned Appellate Tribunal. (iv) As all the parties are before this Court, they are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Tribunal on 18.05.2026.