ORDER : (Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the Recovery Officer of the Regional Provident Fund, challenging the order passed by the first respondent/Tribunal in Original Application No.MA/868/2019 dated 19.02.2020 by which the petitioner's request seeking stay of operation of the Tribunal against the corporate debtor with the consequential relief towards the sale was rejected by directing the petitioner to lodge its claim. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed is one without jurisdiction. Even much earlier, the order was passed under Section 7(A) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 that the order has become final followed by the consequential proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal was wrong in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Though on an earlier occasion, this Court declined to entertain the Civil Revision petition filed in C.R.P.No.3758 of 2019 by order dated 21.01.2019, in view of the order passed by the Apex Court in M/s.Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Karnataka and others (Crl.A.No. 9170 of 2019 dated 03.12.2019), the writ petition filed is maintainable. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the order passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid revision binds the petitioner. There is an alternative remedy available before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal(NCLAT). There is nothing wrong in the order impugned passed in view of the non obstante clause contained under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal rightly rejected the application filed and, therefore, the petitioner will have to be directed to file the claim petition. 4. We have perused the order under challenge. In the application filed, the petitioner clearly raised the issue of jurisdiction. 5. In the impugned order, the fundamental and primary question raised by the petitioner has not been considered at all. The Tribunal merely took note of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and directed the petitioner to file a claim petition. This approach of the Tribunal in passing the order, which is adjudicatory in nature, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. The objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent stands overruled. On the earlier occasion, the petitioner has filed only a revision petition. Further, what is raised now is one of jurisdiction. This approach of the Tribunal in passing the order, which is adjudicatory in nature, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. The objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent stands overruled. On the earlier occasion, the petitioner has filed only a revision petition. Further, what is raised now is one of jurisdiction. Moreover, we are not going in to the merits of the case as we find that the Tribunal has not considered the issues raised. Thus, the order of the Division Bench, in our considered view, will not stand in the way of the petitioner in maintaining the writ petition. After all, the petitioner seeks to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereas he invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the earlier occasion. We are dealing with a writ of certiorari before us and, therefore, we are concerned with the decision making process which, we find, was not exercised properly by the Tribunal. 7. In such view of the matter, the order under challenge stands set aside with the direction to the Tribunal to consider the issue of jurisdiction as raised by the petitioner with specific reference to the provisions contained under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 vis-a-vis the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Accordingly, the Tribunal is directed to consider the Original Application No.MA/868/2019 in No.CP /567/1B in the light of the discussion made above, by way of speaking order and by giving a finding on its jurisdiction, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We make it clear that all the issues both on fact and law are left open. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.