S. P. SRIVASTAVA AND M. P. SINGH, JJ.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel representing the respondent authorities.

( 2 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents challenging the maintainability of this appeal asserting that the order, which was the subject matter of the writ petition disposed of by the learned single Judge vide the impugned order dated 26. 10. 2002, was an order passed by a Tribunal, therefore, as provided in Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, no special appeal could lie against such an order.

( 3 ) A perusal of the various provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions act, 1952, indicates that under the Scheme of the Act, the Provident Fund Commissioner while discharging its duties under the Act has not been vested with any trappings of the Court. At the most, he can be taken to be a Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any such feature which may lead to an inference that while discharging the duties under the Act the Provident Fund Commissioner can be taken to be a Court.

( 4 ) IT may further be noticed a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document