1 W.P. No.1059/2011 Date: 2.11.2011 Shri G.S. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anand Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent. With consent heard and finally disposed of. O R D E R 1/ By filing this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.12.2010 passed by Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) in ATA No.529 (8) 2004. 2/ According to the petitioner, the question involved in the said appeal was whether there was any delay on the part of the appellant in making payment after the settlement, whereas the Tribunal has said that the only point to be seen is whether the back-wages amounts to basic wages. It is the case of the petitioner that this was not the question involved in the matter. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed mechanically taking facts of some other appeal ignoring the facts and the grounds of the appeal before it and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and the matter requires to be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the question involved in the 2 matter as per the memo of appeal. Shri Anand Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that the Tribunal has rightly dealt with the matter. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order dated 10.12.2010, we find that the Tribunal has committed an error in saying that only point which requires consideration is as to whether the back- wages amounts to basic wages. In fact this was not at all the question which was there in the appeal to be decided by the Tribunal. The tribunal was required to decide the question as per the order impugned before it and as per the grounds raised in the memo of appeal. However instead of it the Tribunal has considered the facts and grounds not at all involved in the matter before it and erroneously decided the appeal. In the circumstances we quash the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the question involved in the appeal. The petition stands disposed of. (SHANTANU KEMKAR) (PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE JUDGE Trilok/-