CGIT2 Delhi EPF Matter Order dated 20.05.2026 passed in Appeal No. D-2/09/2026 M/s Delhi Public School Ghaziabad Society…

D-2/09/2026

Delhi Public School Ghaziabad Society Vs. APFC/RPFC Gurugram East

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM

LABOUR COURT, No.2/ EPFAT DELHI

Appeal No. D-2/09/2026

M/s Delhi Public School Ghaziabad Society vs. APFC/RPFC, Gurugram East.

Present: Sh. S.K. Khanna, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.

Sh. Chakradhar Panda, Ld. Counsel & Md. Sarfaraz Alam, A/R for the respondent.

,

Order dated-20.05.2026

1. Today the matter is listed for filing of reply to the miscellaneous application filed for condonation of delay as well as an application filed for seeking stay on execution of the impugned order. Initially Sri Chakradhar Panda, ld. Council for the Respondent has stated that he has sent the reply to the respondent department for approval and the officer from the department is about to come and therefore sought a passover for half an hour.

2. After half an hour, the officer namely Md. Sarfaraz Alam, Enforcement Officer has come with the reply but he has not brought the annexures to the reply. However, on asking, he has filed the reply signed by RPFC-II, Gurugram East. A blank affidavit has also been signed by the deponent Sri Apurv Gautam, Regional Commissioner-II. No Name parentage and age are mentioned in the affidavit. It appears that it is a stereotype affidavit kept and taken out the print. The said affidavit is affixed hereunder for ready reference:- D-2/09/2026 Delhi Public School Ghaziabad Society Vs. APFC/RPFC Gurugram East

D-2/09/2026 Delhi Public School Ghaziabad Society Vs. APFC/RPFC Gurugram East

The above said practice is highly depreciated as it is against the law. The Deponent has to go for attestation before a notary public, however, in this case he has signed the affidavit without mentioning his date, name and parentage.

D-2/09/2026 Delhi Public School Ghaziabad Society Vs. APFC/RPFC Gurugram East

Page 1 of 8

3. Now coming to the application in hand for condonation of delay; Applicant in his application for Condonation of delay has mentioned that Sri Amardeep, Senior Executive (Outsource Manpower) received a phone call on 12/03/2026 from the enforcement officer intimating that an amount of Rs.11,71,472/- is due from the appellant. The enforcement officer on the request of Sri Amardeep, sent an email on 16/03/2026 enclosing, the demand notice dated 13/08/2025 for Rs.11, 71,472 for the damages and interest payable for the period 07/ 2016 to 07/2023. According to appellant, neither the demand notice dated 13/08/2025 nor any order passed under section 14 B & 7 Q of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) was received by the appellant prior to this. As such he had come to know about the order on 20/03/2026 when Sri Amardeep went to the office of the respondent to find out the details of the demand outstanding against the appellant. The office of the respondent provided copy of the two orders dated 28/02/2025 passed under section 14 B & 7 Q the Act on 20/03/2026. Therefore, it is the submission of the appellant that he has filed the appeal well within the period of limitation counting it from the date of knowledge.

4. Now coming to the reply filed by the respondent opposing the application for condonation of delay, it is submitted that the application of the appellant is a blatant abuse of process of law and the appellant has tried to mislead this tribunal by omitting as well as committing/ concealing something which is nothing but a penal offense and the appellant is responsible for the consequences thereof. He further submits that the orders passed by the authority on 28/02/2025 were well within the knowledge of the appellant. Both the orders under section 14B and 7Q of the Act were served on the appellant and entered in the dispatch register of the EPFO at item no. 225 dated 13/08/2025. Therefore, he prays that the appeal being filed beyond the period of limitation is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record brought by the official of the respondent department. Prior to decide the application for condonation of delay provision of Rule 7(2) of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules are required to be reproduced which are as under:-

7. Fee, time for filing appeal, deposit of amount due on filing appeal.—

(1) Every appeal filed with the Registrar shall be accompanied by a fee of Rupees five D-2/09/2026 Delhi Public School Ghaziabad Society Vs. APFC/RPFC Gurugram East

Page 2 of 8

hundred to be remitted in the form of Crossed Demand Draft on a nationalized bank in favour of the Registrar of the Tribunal and payable at the main branch of that Bank at the station where the seat of the said Tribunal situate.

(2) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government or an order passed by the Central Government or any other authority under the Act, may within 60 days from the date of issue of the notification/order, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. Provided that the Tribunal may if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, extend the said period by a further period of 60 days. Provided further that no appeal by the employer shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless he has deposited with the Tribunal a Demand Draft payable in the Fund and bearing 75% of the amount due from him as determined under Section 7-A. Provided also that the Tribunal may for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under Section 7-O.

6. There is no quarrel about the legal proposition that limitation of filing of the appeal to this tribunal is sixty days from the date of passing of the order, further the delay can be condoned by the tribunal for another sixty days, if the tribunal is satisfied with the reason put forward by the appellant by which he was prevented. Further, there is also no quarrel about the legal proposition that limitation for filing the appeal is counted from the date of knowledge and not from the date of issuance of order.

7. Appellant’s grievance in the present case is that he has received the order passed by the RPFC only on 20/03/2026 when he has received the demand notice dated 13/08/2025 issued by the Department and which was supplied to the appellant on his request through email. While the respondent in his reply has submitted that he has sent the demand notice and the copy of the impugned orders on 13.08.2025 to the appellant through post however, no annexure has been filed nor any particular have been given regarding the dispatch register. Even in the trial court record, assessing officer on 22.04.2025 has written to the recovery officer of Regional Office Gurgaon certifying that the sum of Rs.11,71,472/- which is due from M/s. Delhi Public School Ghaziabad D-2/09/2026 Delhi Public School Ghaziabad Society Vs. APFC/RPFC Gurugram East

Page 3 of 8

Society, GNGG/1469154 against the assessment levy of damages under section 14B and interest u/s 7 Q of the Act on account of belated remittance of EPF and allied dues is in with reference to the provisions of section 8B(2) of the EPF and MPF, Act, 1952 requesting him to recover the same in accordance with provisions of the said Act. The contents of the letter dated 22.04.2025 are reproduced here under for ready reference-

D-2/09/2026 Delhi Public School Ghaziabad Society Vs. APFC/RPFC Gurugram East

Page 4 of 8

8. If the respondent’s assertion is taken as true that the copy of the order has been dispatched on 13/08/2025 then it amounts that impugned order has never been sent prior 22/04/2025 when the communication has been made by the assessing officer to the recovery officer for recovering the amount assessed by him. Without ensuring the compliance of sending the order to the appellant, the recovery proceedings have been started by the respondent. Moreover, it is not possible that the order was dispatched on 13/08/2025 because on the same date Notice of demand to defaulter has been sent to the appellant. For ready reference, the notice of demand to defaulter issued by the recovery officer dated 13/08/2025 is reproduced here under-

D-2/09/2026 Delhi Public School Ghaziabad Society Vs. APFC/RPFC Gurugram East

Page 5 of 8

9. From the above discussion it appears that the respondent is trying to hide it’s deeds and put blame on appellant for not filing the appeal within time. Hence, the version of the appellant is reliable that he has received the notice of demand on 20.03.2026, therefore, the application is disposed of as such assuming no delay in filing of appeal. Further, the appeal file brought before this tribunal reveals that the appellant has never participated. No communication of any kind sent to the appellant informing him to participate in the enquiry proceedings has been found in the record. Each and every time from day one the appellant D-2/09/2026 Delhi Public School Ghaziabad Society Vs. APFC/RPFC Gurugram East

Page 6 of 8

was not present. The daily order sheets present in the file reveals that it was not signed by Sh. Mohit Kumar, the assessing officer at any point of time. Without ensuring that the appellant has ever been served, he has put the absence of the appellant. For ready reference, the daily order sheets are reproduced hereunder-

D-2/09/2026 Delhi Public School Ghaziabad Society Vs. APFC/RPFC Gurugram East

10. Perusal of the above order sheet dated 19/11/2024 reveals that it was mentioned in it that the final order would be pronounced on 26/11/2024, however, the record produced by the department does not reveal anything happening on 26/11/2024. The order was pronounced D-2/09/2026 Delhi Public School Ghaziabad Society Vs. APFC/RPFC Gurugram East

Page 7 of 8

on 28/02/2025. The above said practice for not writing the order sheet dated 26/11/2024 as well as not mentioning the matter in the cause list of the day when the order was pronounced amounts to disobeying the earlier order of this court given in the matter bearing appeal number D- 2/04/2024 titled as M/s.E-Meditech Insurance Ltd. Vs. APFC/RPFC, Gurugram East.

ORDER

It is mandate of the law that before levying and recovering the damages, opportunity of hearing shall be given. Record reveals that no hearing has been given to the appellant by the respondent while assessing the dues under Section 14 B & 7 Q of the Act. Therefore, this order passed by the respondent on 28.02.2025 is set aside and recalled. This appeal is remanded back to the respondent to decide afresh by giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Appellant shall be communicated about each hearing on the following address through registered post/ speed post, email and contact number which are supplied today by ld. Counsel for the appellant during the course of hearing:- Name: Ms. Shalini Singh, Principal Address: M/s Delhi Public School Ghaziabad Society, C-Block, Sushant Lok-1, Sector- 43, Gurgaon-Haryana-122003 Email id: principal.sl@dpsg.org Mobile Number: 9826778882

Copy of such communications sent to the appellant shall be kept in the trial court record for future references. A copy of this order be sent to the Central PF Commissioner for taking action against the erring officer and report to this tribunal within three months.

Sd/- (Atul Kumar Garg) Presiding Officer

Page 8 of 8