JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed aggrieved against the order dated 24/3/2017 passed by the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 7-I of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('the Act, 1952') has been accepted and order dated 20/9/2012 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Udaipur under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952 has been set aside. 2. The Commissioner by his order dated 11/4/2012 (Annex.1) came to the conclusion that the applicant i.e. Mr. B.Ponnappan was entitled for consideration of pension benefits and, therefore, the EPF contribution was required to be deposited by the respondent in respect of applicant from the date of joining to the date of retirement. Whereafter, on 20/9/2012 assessment under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952 was made and the respondent was directed to deposit the due amount of Rs. 50,695/- within 15 days of the order. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal after hearing the parties inter alia came to the following conclusion: '3. In the present appeal, dispute in-between the parties is with regard to assessment of dues of Shri B.Ponnappan ex-employee of appellant establishment. As per case of appellant, Shri B.Ponnappan was transferred to the appellant establishment in the year 1997 from Bhopal Sugar Mills, Sihor. As and when appellant started doing work with the appellant establishment, appellant started deducting PF and pension fund contribution and after his retirement from the services in the year 2003, respondent settled all his dues so any assessment of dues is against the rule of natural justice. 4. Admittedly bypassing impugned order dated 20.09.2012, respondent assessed amount of Rs. 50,696/- on the basis of total wages drawn by employee for the period 02/1977 to 02/2003. While passing impugned order, respondent not considered the stand of appellant that employee already settled his dues with the appellant. Respondent never enquired whether appellant establishment actually stopped contributing PF and pension fund contribution. Order passed by respondent is entirely on the basis of surmises and conjectures which is not sustainable in the eyes of law hence by allowing present appeal, impugned order passed by respondent set aside. Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per law. Respondent never enquired whether appellant establishment actually stopped contributing PF and pension fund contribution. Order passed by respondent is entirely on the basis of surmises and conjectures which is not sustainable in the eyes of law hence by allowing present appeal, impugned order passed by respondent set aside. Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per law. File re consigned to the record room after due compliance.' 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the order dated 20/9/2012 passed by the petitioner. It was submitted that the order was passed in accordance with law and was made for safeguarding the interest of the employees in general, however, the Tribunal without considering the material available before it allowed the appeal in a cursory manner, therefore, the said order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 7. Besides raising general grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any apparent perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Apart from the above, this Court is at loss to find any locus of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. The complainant Mr. B.Ponnappan, though may have some grievance against the order, the Commissioner apparently cannot question the validity of the order passed by the Tribunal and that also after an unexplained delay of over one year. 8. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.