JUDGMENT : Mr. K. Harilal, J. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, confirming Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent herein assessing arrears under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which is due from the petitioner/Company. By Ext.P3 order, the 2nd respondent held that the establishment is liable to remit contributions even in respect of the retired Security Personnel and Part-time Sweepers, who have attained the age of superannuation. It was the contention of the petitioner that before the 2nd and 1st respondents that the contributions are not payable in respect of the employees who have attained the age of superannuation, as they fall within the definition of 'excluded employee' under Section 2(f) of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme. However, the said contention was rejected by the 2nd respondent and aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 Memorandum of Appeal before the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent has not considered any of the grounds raised in Ext.P4 appeal and instead of it, the 1st respondent was carried away by the facts of some other case and rendered Ext.P5 order on that basis. Under this circumstance, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the 1st respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, going by Exts.P4 appeal and P5 order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, it could be seen that the 1st respondent had been carried away by the facts of some other case and rendered the order mistakenly. It is obvious, on a reading of Ext.P4 order, that the Tribunal did not even refer to appeal papers, before passing Ext.P4 order. The Tribunal was under the impression that the order under challenge was one passed under Section 14B of the EPF & MP Act, imposing damage. But the order appealed against was one passed under Section 7A of the above Act and the question was whether the Security personnel and part-time sweepers who had attained the age of superannuation would fall within the definition of 'excluded employees' under paragraph 2(f) of the EPF Scheme. Thus, the Tribunal miserably failed to understand even the facts of the case from which the appeal arose. Thus, the Tribunal miserably failed to understand even the facts of the case from which the appeal arose. In other words, Ext.P5 order is passed without application of mind. None of the grounds raised in Ext.P4 appeal had been considered while passing Ext.P5 order. 4. Consequently, Ext.P5 order will stand set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 appeal afresh and pass orders accordingly. 5. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.