(1) IN a proceeding under Section 7(A) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, a determination had been made against the appellant that the appellant is liable to contribute towards certain class of persons who are covered under an agreement to transport sugarcane. The question raised is whether they are employees in respect of whom the appellant has to make the contribution under the Act. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner did not discuss the material on record to determine this aspect. The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal has also not considered this aspect. Much less did the High Court in writ petition. In the circumstances, we fail to understand as to how any of the authorities or the High Court could have reached the conclusion without appropriate consideration of the matter. In the absence of any material, the High Court could not have decided as to whether the transporters or carriers were also covered by the Act as persons in respect of whom, contribution will have to be made by the appellant. The order made by the High Court in a writ petition and the orders passed by The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal a