A.P. Lavande, J.

Heard Mr. P.P. Singh learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A.V. Nigalye, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

2. By this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Tribunal, New Delhi, in an appeal preferred u/s 7-I of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1952 ("The Act" for short) preferred by the Respondent against the order passed by the Petitioner himself u/s 7-A of the said Act. When the matter was called out, Mr. Nigalye, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the present petition filed is not maintainable, in as much as the Appellate Authority has set aside the order passed by the Petitioner himself u/s 7-A of the said Act. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner while passing the order which was impugned before the Appellate Authority was discharging quasi-judicial functions and, as such, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the order passed by the higher authority, setting aside his order by filing the writ petition. According to Mr. Nigalye, permitting the Petitioner to file the present petition would be subversive of judicial di