M/s Hotel de Romana vs APFC Delhi North on 12 October 2026

1. The applicant (respondent in the main appeal) had filed an application seeking the review of the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 passed by this Tribunal vide which the order dated 29.10.2010 of the respondent for levying the damages under section 14B and the interest amount under section 7-Q of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act")) was set aside and recalled. Through the present review application, the applicant has prayed that the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 passed by this Tribunal should be recalled.

4. Sh. S.K. Gupta, counsel for the appellant in the main appeal

2. No written reply to the review-application has been filed by the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated at bar that he would argue orally upon the merits of the said application. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties in this case. Learned counsel for the applicant (respondent in the main appeal) has argued that the original record of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner could not be produced before the Tribunal as it was not traceable. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that non production of the above-said record of APFC by the respondent could not be made a ground for setting aside the order dated 29.10.2010 of APFC. Learned counsel for the applicant has pleaded that the damages under section 14B of the Act could be levied in every case of delay in payment of provident fund contributions whether the delay was regular or irregular/ sporadic. Learned counsel for the applicant has further pleaded that the issue regarding the relevancy of circular dated 29.05.1990 of the EPFO was still pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and any relief could not be granted on the basis of the above said circular. Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the impugned order date 20.08.2025 of the Tribunal should be recalled on the above-said grounds.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant (in the main appeal) has argued that the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Tribunal was a detailed and well-reasoned order. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the present review application was filed by the applicant (respondent in the main appeal) only to justify the negligence of the respondent in not producing the original record of the respondent before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the review application of the applicant had no merits and should be dismissed with heavy costs. ii.

6. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has repeatedly laid down that the review of a final order is permissible only in the following circumstances. iii. Discovery of new or important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of petitioner or could not be produced by him Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record Any other sufficient cause.

In this view, I am fortified by the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati 2013 8 SCC

320.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had reiterated the above-said principles in the ruling Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew Vs. Rajesh Kumar 2025 INSC

853.

8. In the ruling Malleeswari vs K. Suguna and another 2025 INSC 1080, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had clarified that phrase "for any sufficient reason" means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories.

9. A careful perusal of the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 of the Tribunal would show that the sole ground cited by the Tribunal for allowing the appeal was non-production of the original record of the trial court (original record of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner) before the Tribunal. It was incumbent upon the respondent to have produced the original record pertaining to the deposit of provident fund contributions by the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal. It was only on the basis of the above-said original record that the Appellate Tribunal could have verified as to whether there was really any delay in the deposit of provident fund contributions by the appellant. The impugned order dated 29,10.2010 was passed by the respondent solely upon the basis of the original record relating to deposit of provident fund contributions by the appellant. In this background, the Tribunal was fully justified in allowing the appeal of the appellant on the ground of n-Droduction of the above-said original record by the respondent.

10. Since the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 was passed by the Tribunal solely upon the ground of non-production of trial court record, the remaining arguments of the applicant are not relevant for deciding the review application.

11. In the present case, it would be seen that there is no discovery of any new or important matter or evidence, there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient circumstances justifying the review of the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 by the Tribunal as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is apparent that in the present case, none of the conditions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as stated above is fulfilled. On the contrary, the Presiding Officer of Tribunal had passed a detailed and well-reasoned order in this case.

12. Consequently, the applicant has failed to make out any case for the review of the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 of this Tribunal.

13. In these premises, the present review application filed by the applicant (respondent in the main appeal) has no merits and is hereby dismissed.

14. The appeal-file be consigned to the Record Room. (Presiding Officer) Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Delhi-I 12.10.2026