JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. Heard Sri Shailendra Srivastava, who appears for the petitioner-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sri Anurag Vikram holding brief of Sri Dipak Seth for respondent no.2 and Sri Vinayak Saxena for respondent no.3. 2. Sri Shailendra Srivastava, who appears for the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, has filed this petition on behalf of the Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub Regional Office, challenging the order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 19.9.2011. 3. Sri Anurag Vikram holding brief of Sri Dipak Seth, has pointed out the earlier order passed by this Court by which, the learned counsel for the petitioner had to establish the maintainability of the writ petition first. 4. Sri Vinayak Saxena is present for the SGPGI. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 says that it is an exempted company under subsection (2) of Section 16 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act as it is an organization that employs ex-servicemen, who are in receipt of pension benefits as admissible under the Government Rules exclusively. 6. A copy of the Notification dated 5.4.2000 has been produced before this Court to substantiate the claim of respondent no.2 that it is an exempted company/establishment. 7. This Court has perused the Notification dated 5.4.2000 and also the order dated 4.7.2011, which has been recalled by the impugned order dated 19.9.2011. When the order dated 4.7.2011 was passed, a specific query was made by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal to respondent no.2, who was the appellant, whether it is an exempted establishment and its counsel in the year 2011 had stated that its application was pending before the appropriate authority. 8. It is apparent that Notification dated 5.4.2000, which has been produced before this Court, has been issued under Section 16(2) of the Act. It is apparent that till the date of passing of the order dated 4.7.2011, no order had been issued by the appropriate Government, exempting respondent no.2 specifically from the provisions of the Act. The respondent no.2's application was pending. No specific order being passed in its favour, its exemption could not have been presumed. 9. The order dated 4.7.2011 having been passed after hearing all the parties, could not have been recalled on 19.9.2011 only on the basis of Notification dated 5.4.2000 issued by the Central Government. The respondent no.2's application was pending. No specific order being passed in its favour, its exemption could not have been presumed. 9. The order dated 4.7.2011 having been passed after hearing all the parties, could not have been recalled on 19.9.2011 only on the basis of Notification dated 5.4.2000 issued by the Central Government. The Notification dated 5.4.2000 is a general notification with respect to all establishments that employ ex-servicemen exclusively. The application of respondent no.2 for specific exemption remaining pending at the time when the order dated 4.7.2011 was passed, the same ought to have been considered by the Tribunal by asking respondent no.2 to prove that it employed ex-servicemen only and no one else. The order dated 19.9.2011 has not dealt with the matter appropriately as it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.2 does not employ ex-servicemen exclusively. 10. The order passed by the Tribunal dated 19.9.2011 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to consider afresh the contention raised by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner that there is no exemption as yet issued specifically under the Act in favour of respondent no.2. 11. The writ petition is partly allowed.