Central Government Industrial Tribunal
EPF matters orders dated 16.09.2025 CGIT-2 Delhi except item no. 1 of the cause list which is uploaded separately on 16 September 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.
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, No. 2 DELHI
D-2/07/2025 M/s Ambience Hotel & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. APFC/RPFC, Delhi Gurugram East.
Present: Sh. Rajiv Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the appellant. Sh. S.N. Mahanta, Ld. Counsel along with Sh. Lalit Kumar, AR
for the respondent.
,
Order dated-16.09.2025
Counsel for the appellant has pressed his plea for stay of the impugned order passed under section 14B & 7Q of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the respondent, where the respondent has assessed the dues to the tune of Rs. 9,38,541/- as well as Rs. 6,07,906 on 12.03.2025 under section 14B & 7Q of the Act. Appellant counsel has stated that the respondent has completely ignored that the appellant being a hotel was worst effected during the covid pandemic due to extreme restrictions on the public activities resulting in grave financial crisis so much so that the wages also could only be paid after a delay and as such should not burdened further with damages and interest for the delayed payments. Respondent no. 2 failed to give an opportunity to represent the case of the appellant in the impugned proceedings on 11.03.2025. Ld. Authority failed to appreciate that the appellant had only effected the compliance of RPFC’s direction vide letter dated 18.06.2021 and deposit an amount of Rs. 11,72,221/-. He submitted that it is a good prima-facie case, therefore, the impugned order passed under section 14B & 7Q of the Act be stayed till the final disposal of the appeal.
Respondent herein has filed the reply opposing the prayer of the appellant. He has narrated firstly the objective of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 which is a social welfare legislation. He further submitted that by the 15th day of the next month, the employee was directed to deposit the PF dues. Here the 7A order has been passed in respect of the casual employee whose provident fund has not been deposited by the appellant. Their funds have been deposited belately in the year 2021, therefore, delay in remittance of the provident fund is attracted.
During the course of arguments, appellant’s counsel has stated that he is ready to deposit the interest component. However, this Tribunal feels it appropriate after considering all the aspects of financial difficulties, direct the respondent to deposit the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- over and above the interest component which has been assessed by the respondent vide order dated 12.03.2025. With this, appellant is directed to deposit the said amount within six weeks from today. Till then, interim order, if any be continued.
Put up for filing of reply of the main appeal on 12.11.2025.
D-2/22/2022 M/s Jaypee Healthcare Ltd. vs. APFC/RPFC, Delhi Noida.
Present: Sh. S.K Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the appellant. Ms. Kavya Dixit, Proxy Counsel for the respondent. ,
Order dated-16.09.2025
Written submissions on behalf of both the parties have been filed today. Let this matter be listed for final argument on 06.11.2025.
D-2/33/2022 M/s OYO Hotels & Homes Pvt. Ltd. vs. APFC/RPFC, Gurgaon.
Sh. B.B Pradhan, Ld. Counsel along with Sarfaraz Alam, AR
for the respondent.
,
Order dated-16.09.2025
At request of the appellant’s counsel, this case is adjourned to
D-2/09/2023 M/s Oravel Stays Ltd. vs. APFC/RPFC, Gurugram East.
Sh. B.B Pradhan, Ld. Counsel along with Sh. Lokesh Yadav, AR for the respondent. ,
Order dated-16.09.2025
At request of the appellant’s counsel, this case is adjourned to
D-2/38/2024 M/s Zabi Enterprises vs. APFC/RPFC, Gurugram East.
Present: Ms. Veena Chaudhary, Proxy Counsel for the appellant. Sh. S.N Mahanta, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. ,
Order dated-16.09.2025
As the main counsel of the appellant is not present today, this case is listed for final argument on 19.09.2025.
D-2/07/2021 M/s International Hospital Ltd. vs. APFC/RPFC, Noida.
Sh. Chakradhar Panda, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. ,
Order dated-16.09.2025
At request of the respondent’s counsel, this case is adjourned to