Sivasankara Panicker Radhakrishnan, CJ. 1. Heard learned counsel on either side at length. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners raised a contention that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the controversy and it was not justified in condoning the delay in entertaining RA no. 40/2003. Learned counsel submitted that before considering the application for condonation of delay, the Tribunal allowed MA no. 343/2003 and later condoned the delay in filing the review application. Learned counsel, Mr. Qadri, seems to be oblivious of the fact that MA no. 343/2003 allowed by the Tribunal is actually the application for condonation of delay. We do not find any procedural irregularity by the Tribunal in allowing the condonation petition. 3. Tribunal has proceeded as if a mistake of law had crept in while rendering judgment in OA no. 835 by relying on the judgment of Guahati Bench of the CAT in OA no. 158/94. Tribunal noticed that actually as on the date of decision in OA no.835, the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Prakash Dundappa Mogil v. Union of India (All Full Bench Judgments 1997-2001) was holding the field but the same was not brought to the knowledge of the Tribunal and hence rendered its decision per incurium. Contention was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Gauhati Bench judgment squarely applies to the facts of the case since the petitioners fall in the industrial category while Full Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal was dealing with the category of tailors who fell under non-industrial category. Question as to whether there is any difference between tailors who work on the industrial category or non-industrial category was not considered by the Tribunal. We feel that these aspects require consideration at the hands of the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to reconsider the matter in accordance with law as directed above. 4. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition and set-aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.