ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 13.4.2005 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in purported exercise of powers under section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 read with para 26 of Scheme, namely, The Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme 1952 as also to order dated 5.4.2006 passed by The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on an application under section 7B of 1952 Act. 2. By order dated 5.4.2006, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has dismissed the review preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.4.2005. 3. Respondents on being noticed have filed a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of petition in view of statutory appeal under section 7 I of 1952 Act read with section 7 B (5) of the Act of 1952. Section 7 B (5) postulates : “7B. Review of orders passed under section 7A : (1) ............. (2) …......... (3) …........ (4) …......... - (a) ................ (5) No appeal shall lie against the order of the officer rejecting an application for review, but an appeal under this Act shall lie against an order passed under review as if the order passed under review were the original order passed by him under section 7A. Further more section 7 I stipulates : 7 I - Appeals to the Tribunal. – (1) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by the Central Government, or any authority, under the proviso to sub-section 3, or sub-section4, of section I, or section 3, or sub-section 1 of section 7A, or section 7B except an order rejecting an application for review referred to in sub-section 5 thereof, or section 7C, or section 14B may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such order. (2) Every appeal under sub-section 1 shall be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed.” 4. When faced with such situation, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition with a liberty to approach the appellate authority under section 7 I, however, apprehending that appeal may be dismissed on the ground of limitation, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that appellate authority may be directed to consider the appeal preferred by him on merit. 5. 5. To this learned counsel for respondent has some reservations on the basis of sub-rule(2) of rule 7 of the Employees’ Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997. 6. True it is that sub-rule 2 of rule 7 of the Rules of 1997 stipulates that the appeal against the order passed by the Authority under the Act be filed within a period of sixty days from the date of order passed by the Authority and as per proviso the appellate authority may extend the said period of limitation further by sixty days. 7. However, in the present case, as is evident from the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner that construing the order passed under section 7 B of the Act of 1952 to be a final order, no appeal was preferred. The petitioner with due diligence filed this writ petition. 8. In view whereof, the petitioner is set at liberty to file an appeal. In case an appeal is filed within a period of 15 days from the date of communication of this order the appellate authority shall dwell upon the same on merits instead throwing it over board on the ground of limitation. 9. The petition stands disposed of finally in above terms with the said liberty. Ashok Tiwari for petitioner; J. K. Pillai for respondents.