N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. The petitioner is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. He, by filing the present petition, has called in question judgment and order of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. Before the Appellate Tribunal, the order impugned was the order passed by the petitioner under Sec. 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. When the petition came up for hearing, learned Advocate for the respondent objected to the very maintainability of the petition, raising the same as a preliminary point. Whether the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has got a locus standi to challenge the order of the Appellate Tribunal which entertained and interfered with his order. The parties were heard in extenso on the said preliminary issue. The said point is dealt with at the outset.

2. Addressing the question may be prefaced by portraying the basic facts. The Competent Authority under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter mentioned as 'the E.P.F. Act' for sake of brevity) issued notice to respondent No. 2-company holding that it was covered under the provisions of the E.P.F. Act and furth