-:- 1 -:- Writ Petition No.239 of 2011. 16.11.2011 :- Shri G.S.Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharan, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1. With consent, heard finally. O R D E R BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.12.2010 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi [for short “the Tribunal”] in A.T.A.No.559 (8)/2008. [2] According to the petitioner the question which was involved before the Appellate Tribunal was whether the clubbing of two separate establishments by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner while passing order dated 24.10.2005 was proper or not; whereas the Tribunal has considered the matter by observing that the appellant - petitioner is a Small Education Institution. The question about clubbing has not at all been dealt with by the Tribunal -:- 2 -:- and the Tribunal has gone on all together a different issue which was not at all involved in the matter and in the appeal. [3] Having gone through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal has passed the order without going into the order impugned before it and without dealing with the Memo of Appeal. The petitioner – appellant was not an Education Institution and the question which has been decided by the Tribunal was not involved in the matter. [4] In the circumstances, in our considered view the Tribunal has committed an error apparent on the face of record and as such the order of the Tribunal deserves to be and is hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh taking into consideration the factual and legal aspect of the matter raised in the Memo of Appeal. [5] The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. [ Shantanu Kemkar ] [ Prakash Shrivastava ] JUDGE JUDGE (AKS)