JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.03.2012 passed in W.P.No.15706 of 2008, wherein, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the first respondent for considering the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by the court. 2. The facts leading to this case are as follows: (i) The first respondent/writ petitioner institute was started in the year 1934, which is an Aided Teacher Training Institution governed by the National Council for Teacher Education Act. Totally, 17 members were working as staff in the institution. Since the institution is partly aided institution, seven of the staff members are covered under the Teacher's Provident Fund Scheme and the remaining staff members, who are 10 in number are not covered under the TPF scheme, because, they are on the management salary. Therefore, out of the total 17 members, 3 of them are religious members who are exempted by the special Government Order for religious reason and 7 of them are covered under the TPF scheme and the remaining 7 are covered under the EPF scheme. Hence, the institution has decided to opt for the EPF scheme for the 7 members of the staff who are not covered by the TPF scheme. (ii) The 1st appellant/Provident Fund Commissioner requested the respondent institution to produce the records for verification. Subsequently, representatives of the institution appeared before the Provident Fund Commissioner with relevant records and submitted the factual position about the institute by making it clear that the institute is not mandatorily covered by the EPF Act, since the employees are below 20 members. In spite of the factual position, the institution has opted to go under the EPF coverage prospectively only for the social welfare of the employees. But the problem of payment of arrears from 2000, for the staff, who have left and whose whereabouts are not known cannot be sustained because the EPF act is not strictly applicable as the members are only 17 and not 20. But the problem of payment of arrears from 2000, for the staff, who have left and whose whereabouts are not known cannot be sustained because the EPF act is not strictly applicable as the members are only 17 and not 20. While the institution opted for the coverage under EPF for the unaided 7 employees prospectively and voluntarily, even though the EPF Act is not strictly applicable, there is no reason for the demand of payment of arrears for the staff, who have already left and whose whereabouts are not known and who have never worked for the period of demand. (iii) According to the respondent/institution, without considering the representation during the personal interview and submitted in writing, the Provident Fund Commissioner vide order dated 21.05.2008 directed the respondent institution to remit the amount of Rs.5,33,197.55 (Rupees Five lakhs thirty three thousand one hundred and ninety seven and paise fifty five only) within 15 days from the date of the said order for the period from 6 of 2000 to 8 of 2000 in accordance with the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1952, the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 and the Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976. (iv) Subsequent to the order of the 1st appellant, the 2nd appellant had issued the show cause notice dated 4.6.2008 invoking penal provisions. Challenging the order of the first appellant dated 21.05.2008 and the show cause notice issued by the second appellant dated 4.6.2008, the respondent/writ petitioner filed W.P.No.15706 of 2008. (v) This Court, after making certain observations, allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the 1st appellant/Provident Fund Commissioner for fresh consideration. Aggrieved over the said order, the appellants are before this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has observed that this is not a case of any clubbing of two institutions but within the same institution, the employees, who are not covered by the scheme, cannot be taken note of for the purpose of application of the Act, as the Act is intended to cover the employees in educational institutions and therefore, the decision rendered by the learned single Judge is without application of mind and cannot be allowed to stand, as the remand was made by the learned single Judge to consider the matter in accordance with law. 4. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the scheme intended to be covered is on the basis of group of employees within the same institution of two schemes and the schemes are covered under section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and therefore, the learned single Judge has rightly held in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner. 5. We have heard Mr.K.Gunasekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.FR.A.Xavier Arulraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials annexed in the typed set of papers. 6. Normally, when there is a remand order, even the affected person would not resort to any appeal, in view of the discretion given by the authorities to whom the remand has been made and to decide the matter in accordance with law. But, here is a case where the appellants, who are employers under the Government of India have come out with a plea that while dealing with the matter afresh, if the observation made by the learned single Judge is taken note of by the appellants, it will defeat the very purpose of remand. Therefore, observation made by the Single Judge cannot be allowed to be considered by the appellants while dealing with the matter afresh. 7. The grounds of challenge in respect of various provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the schemes made thereunder are the matters for consideration by the appellants while deciding the matter in accordance with law. The contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the respondent/workman before this court on various pleas are open for advancement before the authorities at the time of deciding the matter afresh. 8. However, if the authority concerned considers the matter afresh in the light of the observation made by the learned single Judge, it would affect the parties and their rights. Therefore, we are of the view that the authority concerned shall consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, it is clarified that the authorities, while deciding the matter afresh, shall not be influenced by the observation made by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned and decide the matter as directed by the writ court afresh in accordance with law after giving notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.