CGIT1 Delhi Order dated 03.08.2026 in EPF Appeal No.D-1/27/2022 M/s IRCON International Ltd vs RPFC-I on 3 August 2026

1. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Delhi West, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 8th floor, 28 Community Centre, Wazirpur Industrial Area, New Delhi-110052.

2. Shri Ram Kyas Ram S/o Shri Saguni Ram, Lakarhi, Bishrampur, District-Palamu, Jharkhand.

3. Shri Hari Sewak Singh S/o Shri Tulsi Singh, Rampur, Post-Katual, Post Office- Chainpur, District-Palamu, Jharkhand.

4. Shrimati Phoolmati Devi widow of Shri Shiv Narayan, Kavtahi Aunta, Auta, Allahabad, UP.

5. Shrimati Kalavvati widow of Shri Laxman, Dihariya Bishrampurm District-Palamu, Jharkhand.

...Respondents Present: Sh. Suman K. Doval, counsel for the appellants. Sh. Chirag Jamwal, counsel for the respondent no. 1. Sh. Akhilesh Pradhan, counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 5.

1. The appellants had filed the present appeal under section 7-1 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the UEPF Act55) challenging the order dated October 14, 2021 under section 7-A of the EPF Act and the order dated December 12, 2021 under section 7-B of the EPF Act passed by the respondent no. 1 directing the appellants to deposit the Provident Fund dues of Rs.4,20,387/- in the Provident Fund Accounts of the respondents no. 2 to

5. Briefly stated, the case of the appellants was to the following effect. The services of one hundred and forty one workers of the appellant no. 1 were dispensed with consequent upon the completion of a construction­ project at Anapara, Vidhyanchal Shakti Nagar, Rihand and Satna with effect from February 06, 1998. In pursuance of a direction of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in writ petition filed by workers, a Memorandum of Agreement dated February 24, 2003 was executed between all the workers and the appellant no.l. In terms of the above-said settlement dated February 24, 2003, the appellant no. 1 had paid a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in full and final settlement towards all terminal benefits in lieu of compensation and other statutory payments as admissible in law for the services rendered by the workers with the appellants. The above-said lump sum compensation of Rs.3500,000/- in fiill and final settlement of all statutory benefits admissible to the workers under the law was received by all the workers including the respondents no. 2 to 5 in the present appeal. Upon being approached by the respondents no. 2 to 5, the respondent no. 1 conducted an enquiry under section 7-A under the EPF Act. Vide order dated October 14, 2021 under section 7-A of the EPF Act and the order dated December 12, 2021, the respondent no. 1 had directed the appellants to deposit the D-.1/27/2022 IRCON International Ltd. & another vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-!,

provident fund dues of Rs.4,20,387/- in the provident fund accounts of the respondents no. 2 to 5. Aggrieved by the above-said impugned orders dated October 14? 2021 and December 12, 2021 of the respondent no. 1, the appellants have filed the present appeal praying that the impugned orders of respondent no. 1 be quashed alongwith some consequential reliefs.

2. Respondent no. 1 had contested the appeal by filing a written reply. Respondent no. 1 had pleaded, inter alia, to the following effect. The present appeal of the appellants was filed beyond the period of limitation and hence, was not maintainable. Upon the retrenchment of the respondents no. 2 to 5, the appellants had failed to pay the outstanding provident flmd dues of the respondents no. 2 to 5 to them as per law. The Memorandum of Agreement dated February 24, 2003 was executed between the workers and the appellant no. 1. The appellant no. 2 who was actually maintaining the provident fund accounts of the respondents no. 2 to 5 was not a party to the above-said Memorandum of Agreement dated February 24, 2003. The amounts lying in the provident fund accounts of the respondents no. 2 to 5 were sacrosanct as per law and could not be accessed by anyone except the respondents no. 2 to 5 themselves. The appellant no. 1 had taken undue advantage by accessing the amounts lying in the provident fiind accounts of the respondents no. 2 to 5 under the Memorandum of Agreement executed with the workers including the respondents no. 2 to 5. The respondent no. 1 was fully authorized to conduct the requisite enquiry under section 7-A of the EPF Act and direct the appellants to pay the outstanding provident fiind dues of the respondents no. 2 to 5 to them vide the impugned orders. The respondent no. 1 had concluded that the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- paid to each of the workers did not include the provident fiind amounts of the workers including the respondents no. 2 to 5. Respondent no. 1 had prayed that the appeal of the appellants should be dismissed with heavy costs.

3. Respondents no. 2 to 5 had failed to file any written replies to the present appeal despite a number of opportunities. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 5 has stated at bar that respondents no. 2 to 5 would not file any written reply to the appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Written submissions of all the parties placed upon the record have been perused.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the services of one hundred and forty one workers of the appellant no. 1 were dispensed with consequent upon the completion of a construction-project at Anapara, Vidhyanchal Shakti Nagar, Rihand and Satna with effect from February 06, 1998. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that in pursuance of a direction of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in writ petition filed by workers, a Memorandum of Agreement dated February 24, 2003 was executed between all the workers and the appellant no.l. Learned counsel for the appellants has pleaded that in terms of the above-said settlement dated February 24? 2003, the appellant no. 1 had paid a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in full and final settlement towards all terminal benefits in lieu of compensation and other statutory payments as admissible in law for the services rendered by the workers with the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has further pleaded that the above-said lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in foil and final settlement of all statutory benefits admissible to the workers under the law was received by all the workers including the respondents no. 2 to 5 in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that upon being approached by the respondents no. 2 to 5, the respondent no. 1 conducted an enquiry under section 7-A under the EPF Act. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that vide order dated October 14, 2021 under section 7-A of the EPF Act and the order dated December 12, 2021? the respondent no. 1 had directed the appellants to deposit the provident fund dues of Rs.4,20,387/- in the provident fund accounts of the

respondents no. 2 to 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has prayed that the impugned orders dated October 14, 2021 and December 12, 2021 passed by the respondent no. 1 are absolutely illegal and should be quashed with a declaration that the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-paid to respondents no. 2 to 5 had included the compensation fbr the provident fund amounts of the respondents no. 2 to 5.

6. Learned counsel fbr the respondent no.l has specifically denied the averments made by the appellants in the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent no.l has argued that requisite provident-fund dues of respondents no.2 to 5 were not paid by the appellants in their provident- fimd accounts. Learned counsel for the respondent no.l has further argued that the respondent no.l was never restrained from conducting the requisite enquiry-proceedings under Section 7A of the EPF Act. Learned counsel for the respondent no.l has pleaded that there was no need to lift the corporate veil between the appellants and the Provident Fund Trust created by the appellants. Learned counsel fbr the respondent no.l has further pleaded there respondent no.l had not violated the EPFO guidelines dated 14.02.2020 in any manner. Learned counsel for the respondent no.l has contended that the respondent no.l had not reviewed the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court orders of 2002 by conducting the proceedings under Section 7A of the EPF Act. Learned counsel for the respondent no.l has further contended that the respondents no.2 to 5 were not bound by the actions of remaining 142 workers involved in the settlement between the appellants and the workers. Learned counsel fbr the respondent no.l has submitted that the principle of res-judicata was not applicable to the Section 7A of EPF Act proceedings conducted by him in any way. Learned counsel for the respondent no.l has further submitted that any undertaking given by respondents no.2 to 5 not to raise any claim could not operate as estoppel against them for claiming their statutory rights to get provident- fimd dues. Learned counsel fbr the respondent no.l has prayed that the appeal of the appellants should be dismissed. Reliance in this behalf was

IRCON International Ltd. & another vs. Regional Provident Fund Conimissioner-I,

placed upon the rulings cited as Regional P.F. Commissioner (II)? West Bengal Vs. Vivekananda Vidyamandir & Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 578, Organo Chemical Industries & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1979) 4 SCC 573, Horticulture Experiment Station, Gonikoppal, Coorg Vs. Regional Provident Fund Organisation (2022) 4 SCC 516, M/s Pawan Hans Ltd. Vs. Aviation Karamchari Sangathana & Ors. (2020) SCC Online SC 51, Central Board of Trustees, EPF Vs. Le Passage to India Tours & Travels (P) Ltd., & connected matters (Arcot Textile Mills Vs. RPFC) (2013) 16 SCC 1, Parsion Devi & Ors. Vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors. (1997) 8 SCC 715, PTI Employees Union Vs. Press Trust of India Ltd. W.P. (C) 10596/2018, Delhi HC decided on 18.09.2020, Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC

334.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 5 has argued that the appellants is estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the Authority under Section 7A of the EPF Act. Learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 5 has further argued that Hon'ble Allahabad High Court had directed the competent Authority under the EPF Act to adjudicate the grievances of workmen under section 7A of the EPF Act. Learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 5 has pleaded that the accumulations in Provident-Fund accounts of workers are granted statutory protection under Section 10 of the EPF Act. Learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 5 has further pleaded that the Provident-Fund accumulations of workers are sacrosanct and cannot be adjusted towards any settlement or contractual agreement between the workers and the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 5 has contended that the alleged Settlement between the appellants and the workers was in violation of Section 23 of Indian Contract Act. Learned counsel fbr the respondents no.2 to 5 has defended the impugned orders dated 14.10.2021 of respondent no.l as being absolutely legal and valid. Learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 5 has prayed that the present appeal of appellants should be dismissed.

8. At the outset, a perusal of the record would show that the requisite delay in filing of the appeal was condoned by this Tribunal vide order dated 20.07.2022. '

9. For a just and proper decision of this case, it is necessary to refer to certain facts that are admitted by all the parties to the case.

10. The facts admitted by all the parties to the case are to the following effect. The services of one hundred and forty one workers of the appellant no. 1 were dispensed with consequent upon the completion of a construction-proj ect at Anapara, Vidhyanchal Shakti Nagar, Rihand and Satna with effect from February 06, 1998. In pursuance of a direction of Hon5ble Allahabad High Court in writ petition filed by workers, a Memorandum of Agreement dated Februaiy 24, 2003 was executed between all the workers and the appellant no.l. In terms of the above-said settlement dated February 24, 2003, the appellant no. I had paid a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in full and final settlement towards all terminal benefits in lieu of compensation and other statutory payments as admissible in law fbr the services rendered by the workers with the appellants. The above-said lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in full and final settlement of all statutory benefits admissible to the workers under the law was received by all the workers including the respondents no. 2 to 5 in the present appeal.

11. Law is well settled that the facts duly admitted by the parties require no formal proof and can be taken to be duly proved as per law. In this view of the matter, it can be taken to be proved that the respondents no. 2 to 5 had duly received the lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- each in terms of the Memorandum of Agreement dated February 24, 2003 in lieu of all the statutory benefits admissible to them in law. Had the parties intended to exclude the Provident Fund amounts of workers from the scope of the said agreement, this fact would have been specifically stated in the Memorandum of Agreement dated

Februaiy 24, 2003. However, it is nowhere stated in the Memorandum of Agreement dated February 24, 2003 that the lump sum compensation of Rs.35005000/- would not include the Provident Fund dues of the workers. In the background, it is very clear that the lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- paid to each of the workers including the respondents no. 2 to 5 had included the Provident Fund amounts of the workers also.

12. The argument that the appellant no. 2/ IRCON Employees Contributory Provident Fund Trust maintaining the PF accounts of the respondents no. 2 to 5 was not a party to the Memorandum of Agreement dated February 24, 2003 would not alter the basic reality that the above said settlement between the parties was a comprehensive and all inclusive settlement in lieu of all the statutory benefits admissible to the workers. It needs to be recognized that the appellant no. 2 was a independent Provident Fund Trust created by the appellant no. 1 itself to maintain the PF accounts of its workers. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the above-said Memorandum of Agreement dated Februaiy 24, 2003 had also included the Provident Fund dues of the workers payable by the appellant no. 2. The respondent no. 1 should have lifted the corporate veil to recognize the fact that the lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- paid by appellant no. 1 had also included the PF amounts of the respondents no. 2 to 5 payable by the appellant no. 2. Accordingly, the above-said argument on behalf of the respondents is without any substance.

13. Further, it was vehemently argued that the amounts standing in the Provident Fund Accounts of the respondents no. 2 to 5 were sacrosanct and could not be accessed by anyone. However, it needs to be recognized that there is nothing in law to debar a worker from voluntarily relinquishing/ giving up his right to claim the Provident Fund amount in lieu of a lump sum compensation being paid to him in terms

IRCON International Ltd. & another vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioncr-I,

of a comprehensive and all inclusive settlement. In the instant case, the respondents no. 2 to 5 alongwith others had voluntarily entered into a settlement receiving a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- each in lieu of all the statutory benefits admissible to them in law. In this view of the matter, the aforesaid argument on behalf of the respondents has no merits and is rejected.

14. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned orders dated October 14, 2021 and December 12, 2021 passed by the respondent no. 1 are hereby quashed. It is also declared that the lump sum compensation of Rs.3?00?000/- received by each of the respondents no. 2 to 5 had also included the compensation in lieu of the Provident Fund amounts payable to them by the appellant no. 2.

15. Hence, the appeal of the appellants is allowed in terms of the observations made above. The amount by way of pre-deposit under section 7-0 of the EPF Act deposited by the appellants by way of FDR in favour of Registrar CGIT shall be refunded to the appellants after expiry of the period of the appeal. /

16. Case file be consigned to the Record Room. . / (Ajay Kumar Jain) Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Delhi-1 03.08.2026