This Writ Petition has been filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, challenging the order dated 10.05.1999 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in appeal No. ATA/1(18)99/1351.

2. The second respondent is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It has set up a factory for its Company at Rajahmundry. However, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had granted exemption to the establishment of the respondent company by notification dated 18.05.1982 issued in exercise of powers under Section 17 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'). Pursuant to a settlement dated 03.07.1990 with its Union the second respondent revised the Basic Wages, Scheme of Dearness Allowance, Leave Travel Allowance, House Rent Allowance and Educational Allowance apart from making payment of adhoc amount of Rs.2,800/-to all permanent workmen who were on the rolls as on 01.11.1989 and continued to be on the rolls on 01.07.1990. The terms of the settlement specifically provide that adhoc payment would not be referred as remuneration / wages and would not be treated for E.S.I., P.F., Bonus etc., or any other payment linked with the wages. The Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Visakhapatnam (the petitioner herein), however, insisted that payment of adhoc amount of Rs.2,800/-under the settlement dated 03.07.1990 is "wage arrears" and respondent No.2 has to pay Provident Fund contribution on the said amount and initiated enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act to decide as to whether Provident Fund contributions are payable on this amount paid to the workmen by the 2nd respondent.

3. On 31.10.1995, the petitioner, in exercise of powers under Section 7-A of the Act, directed the second respondent Company to pay an amount of Rs.2,54,885/-as Provident Fund contribution and other charges on the adhoc amount of Rs.2,800/-paid to the permanent workmen, who were on the rolls as on 01.11.1989 and continued to be on rolls on 01.07.1990 under the settlement dated 03.07.1990. Challenging this order, the second respondent filed W.P.No.25331 of 1995 and obtained stay of operation of the order dated 31.10.1995 of the petitioner. In the mean time, in September 1998 the Appellate Tribunal under Section 7-I of the Act was constituted and in view of this development, the Hon'ble High Court by order dated 22.01.1999 gave liberty to the second respondent to avail the remedy of appeal and directed that the stay of operation of the impugned order dated 31.10.1995 of the petitioner be continued till the disposal of appeal to be filed by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the second respondent filed an appeal before the first respondent under Section 7-I of the Act. After hearing both the parties, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 10.05.1999 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order dated 31.10.1995 of the petitioner.

4. Heard Sri R.N. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri I.Nagesh, learned counsel for the second respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the second respondent raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petition alleging that the petitioner, who is the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, is not a competent and authorized person to file the Writ Petition challenging the impugned order dated 10.05.1999.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is entitled to question the order of the first respondent Tribunal and that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, a statutory authority exercising quasi-judicial powers under Section 7-A of the Act. The order dated 31.10.1995 was passed by him in exercise of his powers under Section 7-A of the Act has been set aside by the first respondent -Tribunal in Appeal