CGIT2 Delhi EPF Matter Order dated 13.05.2026 passed in Appeal no. D-2/13/2026 M/s. Santosh Medical Dental College vs APFC/RPFC on 13 May 2026

M/s. Santosh Medical Dental College Vs. APFC/RPFC, Meerut BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, DELHI

Appeal no. D-2/13/2026

M/s. Santosh Medical Dental College

Through:- Sh. Prakash Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the appellant. ……Appellant Vs. APFC/RPFC, Meerut Through:- Sh. Narendra Kumar,Ld. counsel for the respondent. …..Respondent Order Dated:- 13.05.2026 A fresh appeal has been placed before the undersigned. It is submitted that the appeal has been preferred against the impugned orders dated 30.03.2026 passed under section 14B and 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), by the APFC, Meerut, whereby the respondent authority assessed Rs. 58,39,836/- and Rs. 28,73,575/- respectively for, belated remittance of PF dues made during the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.05.2020 for the wage month of 11/2017 to 02/2025. The office has reported that the appeal has been filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under rule 07 (2) of Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997. Along with the appeal, an application seeking stay of execution of the impugned orders has also been filed. The main contention of the appellant in this application is that the delay was occurred due to various reasons. Firstly, the appellant was compelled to meet the demands of its employees, and was constrained to deposit PF on wages on which it had no obligation, as the wages exceeded Rs. 15,000/- per

M/s. Santosh Medical Dental College Vs. APFC/RPFC, Meerut month. Secondly, the pandemic spread. Thirdly, there were financial problems due to stoppage of grants of aid which it had earlier received before attaining the status of deemed university. The Counsel for the respondent has sought time to file a reply to the aforesaid application. However, considering the fact that the delay in remittance has already been admitted and the matter is at an initial stage, the reasons for the delay are to be considered at the time of arguments after completion of proceedings. Accordingly, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to stay execution of the impugned orders subject to deposit of 30% of the assessed amounts both under section 14B and 7Q of the Act. The amount shall be deposited within eight weeks of this order. The respondent is directed to file its reply to the main appeal within eight weeks, and thereafter, the appellant shall file its rejoinder within the following two weeks before the Registrar of this Tribunal. Let this matter be listed in the category of final arguments on 18.08.2026. A copy of this order is sent to counsels for both parties via email.

Atul Kumar Garg (Presiding Officer)