CGIT2 Delhi Order dated 20.07.2026 passed in EPF Appeals except item no. 1 of the cause list which is uploaded separately on 20 July 2026

M/s. Ahresty India Pvt. Ltd.

… Appellant Through:- Ms. Muskan Kaushik, ld. counsel for the appellant.

Vs.

RPFC/APFC, Gurgaon (West) …Respondent Through:- None for the Respondent. Order Dated:-20.07.2026

Today, the case is listed for filing of reply to the appeal by the respondent, however, nobody is present on behalf of the respondent. In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is granted to the respondent for filing of reply as a last chance. List the matter on 16.08.2026. It is made clear that if no reply is filed on the next date of hearing, the right of filing the reply shall be struck off. Office is directed to communicate this order to respondent through email.

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENTINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, No. 2 DELHI; Appeal No. D-2/07/2026 M/s.V.K. Electricals

.…. Appellant Through:- None for the appellant Vs. APFC/RPFC, Meerut

…. Respondent Through:- Sh. B. B. Pradhan, ld. counsel for the respondent Order Dated:-20.07.2026

Office has reported that compliance of the order dated 12.06.2026 has still not been reported. Record perused. Vide order dated 29.04.2026, impugned order u/s 14B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 was stayed by this tribunal subject to depositing an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The appellant has not deposited the amount as directed by this tribunal. At his request, he was again given three more weeks’ time to deposit the amount as per order dated 12.06.2026. Since, the appellant has still not complied the order dated 29.04.2026, the stay granted by this tribunal stands vacated. Respondent is at liberty to execute the order as per law. Reply to the appeal has been filed today by ld. Counsel for the respondent. Additional copy is placed on record. Appellant is directed to collect the hard copy of the reply from the registry of this tribunal. Counsel for the respondent is also directed to supply the soft copy of the reply to ld. Counsel for the appellant. List the matter on for filing of rejoinder, if any, by ld. Counsel for appellant on 10.08.2026. Copy of this order be sent to both the parties through email.

M/s. Shivalik Prints

. …. Appellant Through:- Sh. J.R. Sharma & Sh. Bhupesh Sharma, ld. counsel for the appellant Vs. APFC/RPFC, Faridabad

…. Respondent Through:- Sh. B.B. Pradhan, ld. counsel for the respondent Order Dated:-20.07.2026

Ld. counsel for the appellant advanced arguments challenging the jurisdiction and authority of the Assessing Officer to pass the impugned order under Section 7C of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

Ld. counsel referred to Section 7C of the Act and submitted that the provision empowers the Assessing Officer to reassess the dues only where fresh material has come on record or where any matter had been escaped for consideration during the earlier assessment. According to the appellant, neither had any document escaped consideration nor had any fresh material or fact come to the notice of the respondent authority so as to justify the initiation of proceedings or the passing of the impugned order under Section 7C of the Act.

Ld. counsel further invited the attention of the Tribunal to pages 68, 70, and 180 of the appeal paper book. It was submitted that page 68 contains the departmental noting regarding the reopening of the case under Section 7C. Page 70 contains the departmental note sheet, wherein it has been recorded that the report of the first inspection squad had not been taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer while passing the order under Section 7A. The note sheet further records that, as per the report of the Compliance Section, no complaint had been received from any employee till that date. It also recommends that a show cause notice be issued to the establishment, along with the details of the alleged escaped amount, before initiating proceedings under Section 7C of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that no such show cause notice was ever served upon the appellant. He further contended that the respondent has assessed provident fund dues in respect of alleged excluded employees without obtaining or verifying the relevant declaration forms, without examining such employees, and without verifying their wage structure.

The Tribunal has heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. Having regard to the contentions raised and the documents relied upon, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to examine the entire record before proceeding further.

Accordingly, list the matter for further arguments on behalf of the appellant as well as the respondent on 31.07.2026.

M/s. Shreya Construction

.…. Appellant Through:- Ms. Veena Chaudhary, proxy for the appellant Vs. APFC/RPFC, Meerut

…. Respondent Through:- None for the Respondent. Order Dated:-20.07.2026

Today the case is listed for final arguments, however, ld. Counsel for the respondent has informed telephonically that he is unable to reach today due to imposed traffic restrictions. Sh. Prakash Kumar, arguing counsel for the appellant is also not present and proxy counsel appearing for the appellant also seeks an adjournment. Since, arguing counsel for both the parties are not available, the case is adjourned for 12.08.2026 for final arguments.