JUDGMENT : K. Harilal, J. The petitioner is a Charitable Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P6, P7, P16 and P18 orders passed by the respondents; whereby the petitioner has been made liable for remittance of contributions to the Employees' Provident Fund in respect of the employees engaged at the canteen attached to the petitioner establishment. According to the petitioner, the premises were given free of cost to the third party for running the canteen for the convenience of the public and bystanders who visit the hospital. In such circumstances, there was no relationship of employer - employee falling under Sections 2(e) and (f) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the EPF and MP Act') between the petitioner and the employees engaged in the canteen. In support of the above contentions, the petitioner claims that he has produced several documents; but those documents were not taken on the files by the 2nd respondent, who initially passed Ext.P7 order, in the absence of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a petition to review Ext.P7 order, under Section 7B of the EPF and MP Act. But, the 2nd respondent rejected the review petition, by Ext.P16, stating that there was no sufficient ground to review Ext.P7 order. Both orders were challenged, in appeal, before the 1st respondent. But, the 1st respondent, without considering the merits of the case in the order passed under Section 7A of the EPF and MP Act, dismissed the appeal, on a finding that there was no ground to review Ext.P7 under Section 7B of the EPF and MP Act. The legality and propriety of the findings; whereby the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal, are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The crux of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, though the appeal was filed challenging both the initial order passed under Section 7A and subsequent order passed under Section 7B of the EPF and MP Act, the 1st respondent omitted to consider the challenge against the order passed under Section 7A, on merits, and dismissed the appeal, on a finding that the review was not maintainable under Section 7B of the EPF and MP Act. In short, the petitioner's right of appeal against an order passed under Section 7A of the EPF and MP Act, is virtually denied to the petitioner in the said proceeding. Consequently, Ext.P18 is unsustainable under law and the same is violative of the principles of natural justice also. 4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents advanced arguments to justify the findings; whereby the appeal was dismissed, by Ext.P18 order. 5. In view of the rival pleas and the contentions raised there under, at the Bar, the point to be considered is, whether the 1st respondent is justified in dismissing the appeal, without considering the challenge against the order passed under Section 7A of the EPF and MP Act, on merits. 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, going by Ext.P18 order passed in appeal, it is specifically stated in the beginning of the order itself that the appeal is preferred against the order passed by the Provident Fund Authority under Section 7A of the EPF and MP Act, directing the petitioner to deposit the dues. It is true that after passing the order under Section 7A of the EPF and MP Act, the petitioner preferred a review petition under Section 7B of the EPF and MP Act and the review petition was dismissed by Ext.P16 order rejecting the review upholding the order passed under Section 7A of the EPF and MP Act and with a finding that it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order passed under Section 7A of the EPF and MP Act. Merely on the reason that the employer filed a review petition challenging the order passed under Section 7A, he shall not be deprived of his right to appeal against the order passed under Section 7A, which stands culminated in and merged with the order passed under Section 7B. It was obligatory on the part of the 1st respondent to address all the grounds challenging the orders passed under Section 7A. But, here, it is discernible from Ext.P18 order that none of the grounds challenging the findings in Ext.P7 order passed under Section 7A of the EPF and MP Act are considered or addressed by the Appellate Authority in appeal. Ext.P18 order passed in appeal is seen confined to the question whether review petition is maintainable or not. But, here, it is discernible from Ext.P18 order that none of the grounds challenging the findings in Ext.P7 order passed under Section 7A of the EPF and MP Act are considered or addressed by the Appellate Authority in appeal. Ext.P18 order passed in appeal is seen confined to the question whether review petition is maintainable or not. In short, the petitioner has been deprived of its statutory remedy to appeal against the order passed under Section 7A, on merits provided under Section 7(i) of the EPF and MP Act merely on the ground that the petitioner has filed a review petition under Section 7B of the EPF and MP Act and that review petition was not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was no ground to review the earlier order passed under Section 7A of the EPF and MP Act; i.e., the review petition does not satisfy the requirements under Section 7B of the EPF and MP Act. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that the premises were given free of cost to the third party for running the canteen for the convenience of the public and bystanders of the patients who visit the hospital and in such circumstances, there was no relationship of employer - employee falling under Sections 2(e) and (f) of the EPF and MP Act between the petitioner and the employees engaged in the canteen. To substantiate the above contentions, according to the petitioner, the petitioner has produced sufficient documentary evidence; but the 2nd respondent failed to consider those documents in its correct perspective. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the 1st respondent, in appeal, to consider those documents, which are said to have been omitted to consider by the 2nd respondent and pass an order on merits. In this analysis, this Court finds that the 2nd respondent has miserably failed to discharge its statutory obligation, as provided under Section 7(i) of the EPF and MP Act. 8. Consequently, Ext.P18 order will stand quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the appeal afresh, at the earliest, and pass orders accordingly. 9. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.