CGIT1 Delhi Order dated 08.10.2026 in EPF Appeal No. D-1/20/2024 M/s Sun Dial Securities and Manpower vs APFC on 8 October 2026

1. Despite repeated calls, none has appeared for the respondent in this case. It is already 04:00 P.M. Accordingly, the respondent (appellant in the main appeal) is proceeded against ex-parte.

2. The applicant (respondent in the main appeal) had filed an application seeking the review of the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 passed by this Tribunal vide which the present appeal was remanded to the respondent for fresh adjudication by the respondent authority. Through the present review application, the applicant has prayed that the observations made by the Tribunal relating to the respondent in paragraph number seven of the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 was absolutely incorrect, unjustified and should be modified by reviewing the said order.

5. None for the respondent (appellant in the main appeal) No reply to the review-application was filed by the respondent till today. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant in this case. Learned counsel for the applicant (respondent in the main appeal) has argued that while passing the impugned order dated 12.09.2025, the

observations made by this Tribunal in paragraph number seven of the said order were absolutely incorrect and unjustified. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the respondent had made the requisite assessment of the outstanding provident fund dues after examining the entire relevant record pertaining to the appellant. Learned counsel for the applicant has pleaded that both the appellant and the principal employer namely M/s Bliss Inns Private Limited were responsible for maintaining the records related to the salary and provident fund dues of the employees Learned counsel for the applicant has further pleaded that the appellant had not submitted its entire documents before the respondent during the course of enquiry under section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act'). Learned Counsel for the applicant has prayed that the observations made by the Tribunal related to the respondent in paragraph number seven of the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 were absolutely incorrect, unjustified and should be modified by reviewing the above-said order. Reliance in this behalf was placed upon by ruling cited as Pearson India Education Services Private Limited Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi AIRONLINE 2021 DEL 1998 delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on October , 2021

6. Through the present review application, the applicant has prayed that the observations made by this Tribunal relating to the respondent paragraph number seven of the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 are absolutely incorrect, unjustified and should be modified.

7. 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.

ii. ii1.

8.

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. 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.

9. 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.

10. In the present case, in the paragraph number seven, the Tribunal had stated its conclusions drawn upon the basis of a careful perusal of the record. 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 12.09.2025 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.

11. Consequently, the applicant has failed to make out any case for the review of the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 of this Tribunal.

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

13. The time-schedule prescribed by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 has already expired during the pendency of the review application in this Tribunal. Accordingly, a fresh direction is issued to the respondent to conclude the fresh adjudication of. the provident fund dues under section 7A of the Act at the earliest.

14. The appeal-file be consigned to the Record Room. (Presiding Officer) Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Delhi-I 08.10.2026