CGIT1 Delhi Order dated 04.08.2026 in EPF Appeal No.D-1/29/2018 M/s Headquarters Army Welfare Education Society vs APFC Delhi west on 4 August 2026

1. Central Board of Trustees through Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (West), EPFO Complex, Sector-23, Dwarka, Delhi-110075.

2. AWES Cell Headquarters, Delhi Area, Near Gopinath Bazar, Delhi Cantt.-110010. .......Respondent Present: Sh. Ashish Sheoran, counsel fbr the appellant. Sh. Narender Kumar, counsel fbr the respondent no.l. Respondent no.2 already proceeded ex-parte.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the respondent no. 1 under section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "EPF Act”)directing the appellant to deposit the outstanding EPF dues of Ex-Naib Subedar Sh. Umed Singh Parashar in respect of his employment fi'om January, 2005 to December, 2015. The appellant is a society registered under Societies Registration Act to meet the educational needs of children of army personnel. Ex- Naib Subedar Sh. Umed Singh Parashar after his retirement from the Indian Army in the year 2004, had remained under the employment of

the respondent no. 2 with effect from January, 2005 to December, 2015. Upon the expiry of the period of contractual appointment of Sh. Umed Singh Parashar with the respondent no. 2, Sh. Umed Singh Parashar was not paid the EPF dues admissible to him under the provisions of the EPF Act for the period of his employment under the appellant. Upon the complaint made by Sh. Umed Singh Parashar to the respondent no. 1, the respondent no. 1 had conducted an enquiry under section 7-A of the EPF Act and had subsequently passed the impugned order dated 09.08.2018 directing the appellant to deposit the outstanding dues of Rs.2,56,223/- in respect of Sh. Umed Singh Parashar. The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 09.08.2018 of the respondent no. 1 upon a number of grounds which are being referred to in the paragraph relating to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. Tluough the present appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 09.08.2018 of the respondent no.l should be set-aside.

2. Respondent no. 1 had filed a written reply contesting the said appeal. Respondent no. 1 had strongly denied the averments made by the appellant in its appeal. Respondent no. 1 has asserted that Sh. Umed Singh Parashar was entitled to all the benefits admissible to him under the EPF Act during the period of his re-employment with the appellant from January, 2005 upto December, 2015. Respondent no. 1 pointed out that requisite enquiry under section 7-A of the EPF Act was initiated upon the receipt of a complaint from the employee Sh. Umed Singh Parashar regarding the non-payment of his EPF dues by the appellant. Respondent no. 1 has pleaded that the impugned order was passed after hearing both the parties. Respondent no. 1 had defended the impugned order dated 09.08.2018 as being perfectly legal and valid. Respondent

no. 1 has prayed that the appeal of the appellant should be dismissed with costs.

3. Respondent no. 2 had not filed any reply to the appeal of the appellant and was proceeded ex-parte.

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. The appellant had also submitted its written arguments on the record. The written submissions alongwith supporting documents filed by the employee/complainant concerned namely Sh. Umed Singh Parashar were also taken on record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Sh. Umed Singh Parashar was not entitled to any benefits under the EPF Act being the member of a reserve force after five years from the date of his retirement. Learned counsel for the appellant has flirther argued that the salaiy of the above-said employee was more than the threshold limit of Rs.6500/- per month and therefore, the said employee was an excluded employee under the provisions of the EPF Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that the appellant was not covered under the provisions of the EPF Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has flirther pleaded that it was not the employer of the above-said employee and respondent no. 2 alone was his real employer. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Sh. Umed Singh Parashar being a army man had already derived substantial benefits under the regular employees provident fund upon his retirement from the army service and was getting a hefty military pension. Learned counsel for the appellant has flirther contended that since the EPFO had discovered the fact of the eligibility of Sh. Umed Singh Parashar for coverage under the EPF Act in the year 2016, the appellant should be granted the benefits admissible

to an employer during the pre-discovery period. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was not supplied the copies of the complaint, the documents and the other material furnished by the complainant Umed Singh Parashar. Learned counsel fbr the appellant has also stated that submissions of appellant were not considered by the respondent No.l before passing the impugned order dated August 09, 2018. Learned counsel for the appellant had prayed that the impugned order dated 09.08.2018 of the respondent no. 1 should be set-aside upon the above-said grounds. Reliance in this behalf was placed upon the rulings cited as Army Welfare Education Society, New Delhi Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma & others (2024 INSC 501), Food Corporation of India Vs. Provident Fund Commissioner and another 1989 SCR Suppl.(I) 755 and T. Takano Vs. Securities & Exchange Board of India & Another (2022 SCC Online SC 210).

6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has strongly contested the above-said arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel fbr the respondent no. 1 has argued that upon the receipt of a complaint by the ex-employee Sh. Umed Singh Parashar, an enquiry under section 7-A of the EPF Act was initiated by the respondent no. 1. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has further argued that the Enforcement Officer deputed by the respondent no. 1 had also submitted the requisite report after conducting appropriate investigation in this matter. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has pleaded that during the enquiry proceedings it was discovered that Sh. Umed Singh Parashar was entitled to appropriate benefits admissible to him under the EPF Act for the period of his employment under the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has fiirther pleaded that the impugned order was passed after considering the submissions made by the parties concerned

and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 had defended the impugned order as being perfectly legal and valid and prayed that the appeal should be dismissed with heavy costs.

7. For a just and proper decision of this case, it is necessary to refer to the copy of the appointment letter dated December 29, 2004 of Sh. Umed Singh Parashar, and the copies of the letters dated December 20, 2007, December 22, 2010 and December 31, 2014 vide which his contractual appointment was extended fbr further specified periods.

8. A perusal of appointment letter dated December 29, 2004 would show that Sh. Umed Singh Parashar was appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs.6500/- per month fbr a period of three years with effect from January 01? 2005 up to December 31, 2007 by the appellant.

9. Further, a perusal of letter dated December 20, 2007 would show that the appellant had extended the contractual service of Sh. Umed Singh Parashar fbr a further period of three years as per the terms and conditions given in initial appointment letter dated December 29, 2004.

10. A scrutiny of the letter dated December 22, 2010 would show that the contractual service of Sh. Umed Singh Parashar was further extended fbr a period of another three years as per the terms and conditions given in the initial appointment letter December 29, 2004.

11. The copy of letter dated December 31, 2014 would show that the appellant had extended the contractual appointment of Sh. Umed Singh Parashar fbr a fiirther period of one year with effect from January 01, 2015 to December 31, 2015 as per the terms and condition given in the initial appointment letter.

12. Now it has become necessary to again refer to initial appointment letter dated December 29, 2004 in respect of Sh. Umed Singh Parashar issued by the appellant. In the paragraph no. 2 of the appointment letter dated December 29, 2004 of Sh. Umed Singh Parashar, it is specifically recorded that Employer's share of EPF @ of 12% will be paid as applicable as per army HQ letter no. B/45741/AWES dated 02 Jun, 2004. Thus, it would be seen that vide the initial appointment letter dated December 29, 2004, the appellant had specifically declared that the appellant would pay the employer's share of EPF at the rate of 12% per annum in respect of employee Sh. Umed Singh Parashar. It is important to notice that in all the letters of extension of contractual appointment of Sh. Umed Singh Parashar as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, the appellant was repeatedly declaring that his contractual appointment was being extended as per the terms and conditions given in his initial appointment letter (appointment letter dated December 29, 2004).

13. In this background, it can be safely concluded that the appellant itself had been repeatedly declaring and assuring the employee Sh. Umed Sing Parashar that he was being extended the benefits admissible under the EPF Act. Now the appellant cannot be heard to proclaim that Sh. Umed Singh Parashar was an excluded employee and was not covered under the provisions of the EPF Act.

14. On the same analogy, when the appellant itself had declared and assured the employee Sh. Umed Singh Parashar that the appellant would pay its EPF share at the rate of 12% in respect of the said employee, now the appellant cannot be heard to plead that Sh. Umed Singh Parashar was not entitled to any EPF benefits being the member of a reserve force.

15. Moreover, it is important to note that an employee who was initially covered under the provisions of EPF Act may continue his coverage under the EPF Act during the subsequent years when his salary had exceeded the statutory threshold limit of wages for coverage under the EPF Act by his own choice. This liberty is granted to the employee concerned under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 itself. In this background, when Sh. Umed Singh Parashar was willing to continue his coverage under the EPF Act, the argument that during his tenure his basic salary had exceeded the statutory threshold wage limit of Rs.6500/- per month has no substance and is overruled.

16. It was also argued that the appellant was not covered under the provisions of the EPF Act. However, in its own appeal, the appellant has admitted that it had been duly registered under the EPF Act in the year 1983 and had been regularly paying the EPF contributions in respect of its employees since then. In view of the above-said admission by the appellant in its appeal itself, the aforesaid argument on behalf of the appellant is meaningless and is rejected.

17. Another argument on behalf of the appellant was that it was not the employer of Sh. Umed Singh Parashar and respondent no. 2 alone was his real employer. In this connection, it is important to observe that respondent no. 2 is a mere administrative branch of the appellant working under the control of the appellant itself. Therefore, the above­ said argument on behalf of the appellant is absolutely misleading and cannot be accepted.

18. Still another argument on behalf of the appellant was that Sh. Umed Singh Parashar was an armyman and had derived substantial

benefits under the regular employees provident fund upon his retirement fi'om the army service and was getting a hefty military pension even after retirement from the army. However, there is no legal bar for a military pensioner to claim the statutory benefits admissible to him under the provisions of the EPF Act during the period of his subsequent re-employment with any organization. In this situation, the employee Sh. Umed Singh Parashar cannot be denied the lawfill benefits admissible to him under the provisions of the EPF Act during the period of his re­ employment with the appellant.

19. Thereafter, it was submitted that the appellant was not supplied the copies of the complaint, the documents and the other material furnished by the complainant Umed Singh Parashar. However, a perusal of the impugned order dated August 09, 2018 passed by the respondent no.l would show that the departmental representative had submitted his report on the basis of the original complaint and all the documents supplied by the complainant Umed Singh Parashar. It cannot be disputed that the departmental representative had submitted his report to the respondent no.l on the basis of the complaint and the documents supplied by the complainant. A perusal of the impugned order dated August 09, 2018 would also confirm that the copy of the report submitted by the departmental representative was duly supplied to the appellant for rebuttal if any. In this background, the appellant cannot be heard to complain that the contents of the complaint and the documents supplied by the complainant Umed Singh Parashar were not brought to its knowledge.

20. It was also alleged that the submissions of the appellant were not considered by the respondent no.l before passing the impugned order dated August 09, 2018. However, a perusal of the impugned order dated August 09, 2018 passed by the respondent no.l would show that he had duly considered the submissions made on behalf of the establishment/appellant. In fact, the respondent no.l has specifically recorded this fact in the impugned order dated August 09, 2018. Accordingly, this argument on behalf of the appellant stands overruled.

21. Lastly, it was argued that since the EPFO had discovered the fact of the eligibility of Sh. Umed Singh Parashar for coverage under the EPF Act in the year 2016, the appellant should be granted the benefits admissible to an employer during the pre-discovery period. However, as already mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, the appellant had itself declared vide its appointment letter dated December 29, 2004 that the employer would be paying the employer's share of 12% under the EPF Act in respect of the employee Sh. Umed Singh Parashar. Therefore, when the appellant was already well-aware about the eligibility of Sh. Umed Singh Parashar for coverage under the EPF Act since the very beginning, the question of granting any benefits to the appellant for any pre-discovery period would not arise at all.

22. I have carefully examined the impugned order dated August 09, 2018 passed by the respondent no.l in this case. The respondent no.l had duly considered all the materials available on record to arrive at a finding that Sh. Umed Singh Parashar was entitled to recover his lawfiil dues admissible to him under the provisions of the EPF Act during the period of his re-employment. I also find that the impugned order is a

speaking and a well reasoned order made after duly considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the department.

23. For the reasons stated above, the appellant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for by him.

24. Hence, the present appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed^ Case file be consigned to the Record Room. (Ajay Kumar Jain) Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Delhi-1 04.08.2026