( 1 ) BY order dated 9-4-99 the Presiding Officer Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 and remanded the case to the authority under Section 7-A of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-petitioner herein, for redetermination of the provident fund amount to be levied on respondent No. 2, establishment. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure-P-8. It is noticeable that the Tribunal felt that no adequate opportunity was afforded to the respondent No. 2 in course of hearing. That apart, other reasons were ascribed by the Tribunal. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioner preferred a review petition. In review petition no notices were issued and the same was rejected vide order dated 16-8-99.

( 2 ) IN course of hearing, Mr. Satish Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly conceded that he has no grievance to give opportunity of hearing to the respondednt No. 2 but he has serious objection with regard to the comments expressed by the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund, Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Learned counsel has