Central Government Industrial Tribunal
EPF matters order dated 09.12.2025 CGIT-1 Delhi except item no. 3 of the cause list which is already uploaded separately. on 9 December 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
D-1/40/2024 M/s. MFB Geotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. APFC/RPFC, Delhi (West) Present: Sh. J.R. Sharma and Sh. Bhupesh Sharma, Ld. Counsels for the appellant. None for the Respondent.
Order dated- 09.12.2025 Vide my separate order announced in open court, the appeal stands allowed partly. The office is directed to consign the records to the record room after providing copies of the order to both parties.
Item No.2 D-1/04/2025 M/s. Innocean Worlwide Communication Pvt. Ltd.. vs. APFC/ RPFC, Delhi East Present: Sh. Prakash Kumar, ld. Counsel for the Appellant. Sh. Deepak Kumar, A/R for the Respondent. Order Dated-09.12.2025
As the main counsel for respondent is not available today, let the matter be listed for hearing the misc. application filed u/s 7O of EPF & MP Act, 1952. Put up for 17.12.2025. Till then, interim order is continued.
Item No.4 D-1/05/2025 M/s. SAR Engineers , Shakir Ali vs. APFC/ RPFC, Delhi East Present: Ms. Keerti, Proxy for the Appellant. Sh. Deepak Kumar, A/R for the Respondent. Order Dated-09.12.2025
The A/R appearing for respondent seeks more time to file the reply. Last opportunity is granted to the respondent for filing of reply within four weeks. Otherwise, cost of Rs.10,000/- would be imposed. Put up for filing of reply on 22.01.2026.
Item No.5 D-1/28/2025 M/s.Skoda India Pvt. Ltd. vs. APFC/RPFC, Delhi Central; Present: Sh. M.K. Dwivedi & Sh. Anubhav Shukla, ld. counsel for the Appellant. Sh. B.B. Pradhan, ld. Counsel alongwith complainants for the Respondent. Order Dated-09.12.2025
Appellant has filed writ petition filed by him as well as writ petition filed by the complainant before Delhi High Court. Both the parties are agrieved by the order passed by Sh. Gurumukh Singh, the authority under Delhi Shop and Establishment Act.
Ld. counsel for the appellant stated that order passed by the respondent is on the basis of the order passed by the above authority wherein PF have been calculated for the complainant in the present case. More time is needed by this tribunal to go through the files, writ petition and the order passed by the authority as well as the Delhi High Court. Appellant does not wish to file rejoinder. Put up for consideration on 06.01.2026.
Item No.6 896(4)2012 Ahluwalia Contract India Ltd. vs. RPFC, Delhi Present: Sh. Rajiv Arora, ld. counsel for the Appellant. Sh. S.N. Mahanta, ld. Counsel & Sh. A.S. Negi, A/R for the Respondent. Order Dated-09.12.2025
Respondent has placed on record the compliance affidavit however, on going through the affidavit it is found that he had only produced the record in pendrive that was earlier produced by the respondent. Difference is only that record was in physical form and now it is soft copy. There is no mention about availability of form 11. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the form 11 has been sent to forensics for verification, however, no report has been on record even what to say of Form 11. Ld. counsel for the appellant is at liberty to file counter affidavit. Counsel for respondent also seeks liberty to submit clarification on his part regarding form 11. Put up for 20.01.2026. Copy of the record in pendrive has been supplied to the appellant.
Item No.7 D-1/75/2019 M/s. Veer Arjun Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. vs. RPFC-II, Delhi (North)
Present: Sh. Rajiv Arora, ld. counsel for the Appellant. Ms. Santwana Agarwal, ld. Counsel & Sh. A.S. Negi, A/R for the Respondent. Sh. J.R. Sharma, ld. Counsel for the Respondent no.2. Order Dated-09.12.2025
Fresh authority letter has been filed by respondent. Let it be listed for argument on 11.02.2026.
Item No. 18 D-1/11/2023 M/s. Indospirit Distribution Ltd. vs. APFC/RPFC, Delhi (East) Present: None for the appellant.
Sh. B.B. Pradhan, ld. counsel for the Respondent.
Order dated- 09.12.2025
Ld. Counsel for the respondent has moved an application with a prayer that an amount of Rs. 8,94,377/- which was recovered prior to the expiry of limitation period be allowed to be deposited before this tribunal instead of directing him to pay back to the appellant.
I have perused the record of this case. Vide order dated 13.08.2025, this tribunal had allowed the application for condonation of delay opining that appeal was filed well within time because as per annexure R6, the impugned order was booked for delivery on 31.01.2023 and was received to the appellant on 01.02.2023.
Thereafter, an application had been moved by the appellant for refund of the said amount which had been recovered illegally from his account. This tribunal had directed to refund the entire amount which had been recovered from the appellant by way of demand draft within two weeks. However, instead of making compliance of the order, this application has been moved.
This application is bereft of any merit. The same stands dismissed. The respondent is directed to comply the order within week otherwise the account of the respondent shall be attached and the bank shall be directed to comply with the order by making a demand draft in the name of the appellant. Let this matter be listed for argument on 09.01.2026 for argument on the stay application.