M/s. S TV Enterprises vs APFC/RPFC Gurugram Central on 20 July 2026

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT No. 2/EPFAT, DELHI

D-2/21/2026 M/s S TV Enterprises Ltd.

…. Appellant Through:- Sh. Rajiv Arora, ld. counsel for the appellant. Vs. APFC/RPFC, Noida …. Respondent Through:- Sh. Sandeep Mishra, Sh. Ayush Sharma, ld. counsel & Sh. Manjeet Jakhar, A/R for the respondent.

Order dated-20.07.2026

This is a fresh appeal filed by the appellant assailing the order dated 18.05.2026 passed by the Respondent under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The office has reported that the appeal has been filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act The appellant has also filed an application seeking stay of the execution of the impugned orders. Ld. counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Tribunal to page 117 of the appeal, which contains an email dated 22.04.2026, sent at 12:19 P.M. by the respondent department, requiring the appellant to appear through video conferencing on the very next day, i.e., 23.04.2026.

Ld. counsel has further referred to page 118 of the appeal, which records that on 23.04.2026, Shri Sharat Goyal appeared on behalf of the appellant establishment without an authority letter and was directed to furnish the same. The proceedings of the said date further record that Shri Kumar Gaurav, Departmental Representative, submitted that summons dated 28.10.2024 had been issued to the establishment indicating the following dues:

Section Amount 14B Rs.59,74,266 7Q Rs.33,49,965

Ld. counsel has also invited the attention of this Tribunal to the order sheet dated 05.05.2026 at page 120 of the appeal. The said order sheet records that Shri Sharat Goyal and Shri Rajesh Narayan Saxena appeared before the respondent authority without any authority letter. It is further recorded therein that the department stated that the establishment had no objection to the calculations furnished by the department and that the final order might be passed.

It is the appellant's case that the final order dated 18.05.2026 was not communicated to it until 25.05.2026. Prior thereto, on 21.05.2026, the appellant had addressed an email seeking recall of the proceedings/order dated 05.05.2026, which was received by the respondent department on 22.05.2026. Ld. counsel further submits that as on 22.05.2026, the impugned order had not been signed by the respondent authority. It is also contended that the impugned order is cryptic and, therefore, deserves to be recalled.

The record further indicates that the respondent department's e- proceedings portal was not functioning, and consequently, the impugned order could not be uploaded. It is also evident from the record that on 23.05.2026, Shri Vikas Kumar Gupta, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, directed the office to upload the order once the e- proceedings portal became operational. The record further mentions that on 22.05.2026, it was noted that the final order dated 18.05.2026 had been served through email as well as Speed Post vide Tracking No. EH206254675IN.

This Tribunal has, on several occasions, directed the respondent department to ensure that matters reserved for orders are duly reflected in the cause list on the date fixed for pronouncement and that advance notice of the date of pronouncement is communicated to both the appellant and the respondent department.

Ld. counsel for the respondent submits that he shall obtain instructions from the department as to whether the matter was reflected in the cause list on 18.05.2026. He is directed to place on record the cause list dated 18.05.2026, along with the dispatch details relating to the order dated 18.05.2026, on the next date of hearing. List the matter on 03.08.2026 for further arguments on the stay application. In the meantime, learned counsel for the respondent shall file a reply to the stay application. In the meanwhile, the operation and execution of the impugned orders passed under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Act shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. Respodent is also directed to bring complete trial court record including the compliance proceedings conducted against the appellant establishment.

(Atul Kumar Garg) Presiding Officer