Central Government Industrial Tribunal
EPF matters orders dated 01.09.2025 CGIT-1 Delhi except item no. 2 of the cause list which is already uploaded separately on 1 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.
D-1/17/2024 M/s Micromax Informatics Ltd. Vs. APFC/RPFC Delhi North Present: None for the appellant. Sh. Yash Narayan, proxy counsel for Sh. Rajesh Kumar, ld. Counsel for the respondent.
,
Order dated-01.09.2025
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent seeks further two weeks time to get instructions from the RPFC West regarding the impugned order. According to him this case along with other cases has been transferred from Delhi North to Delhi West, however, this tribunal has been kept in dark while transferring these cases to the jurisdiction of one RPFC to another. Therefore, Addl. CPFC Delhi Zone is directed to inform this tribunal about the transfer of cases from one jurisdiction to another. The same be informed to this tribunal by moving amended memo of parties by the respondent counsel in each case so that necessary corrections can be made and the communications from this tribunal can be sent to the concerned RPFC having the jurisdiction of those cases. Report shall be submitted within two weeks. Put up on 18.09.2025. In the meanwhile, interim orders, if any to continue till next date of hearing.
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM
LABOUR COURT, DELHI
D-1/60/2022 M/s. United Coffee House Vs. APFC/ RPFC Delhi (Central).
Present: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, counsel for the appellant. Sh. Rishabh Bharadwaj, proxy Counsel for Sh. Kanhaiya Singhal, ld. Counsel for the Respondent.
Order dated-01.09.2025 Proxy counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent has filed a writ petition before Delhi High Court assailing the order passed by this tribunal on 12.06.2025. He has placed on record, a copy of the order passed by Hon’ble Justice Amit Sharma of Delhi High Court in the case titled as Central Board of Trustee Vs. M/s Delhi Gymkhana Club Pvt. Ltd. where this tribunal had imposed a cost after dismissing the applications of the respondent for vacation of stay and for early hearing of the matter. The counsel of the petitioner in that writ petition had restricted his prayer with respect to waiver of the cost. That writ was partly allowed. It is very paradoxical that respondent on one hand prays for early hearing, now instead of complying with the order and to argue the matter, he chooses to remain absent for today as well as on last date of hearing. Even on 15.07.2025 when this case was listed, respondent counsel had sought adjournment for reporting compliance. Counsel for the appellant submits that he has not received any notice regarding listing of this case tomorrow before Delhi High Court. He also submits that he has checked the diary number but no diary number has been found. Considering the above fact, this matter be listed for 03.09.2025, otherwise the account of the respondent in regard to the cost shall be attached.
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM
LABOUR COURT, DELHI 787(4)2014 M/s. Era Infra Engineering Ltd. Vs. APFC/ RPFC Delhi Present: None for the appellant.
Sh. Yash Narayan, proxy counsel for Sh. Rajesh Kumar, ld. Counsel
& Sh. Sunil Ranjan, A/R for the respondent.
Order dated-01.09.2025 Written arguments on behalf of the appellant are on record. Establishment has moved before NCLT. Trial court record has not been filed. The A/R present for the respondent submits that record is not traceable. In the year 2023 record has been sought but record has not been produced. Four weeks’ time is given to the department to trace the record. Appellant counsel be given notice through email mentioned in the written notes of arguments to apprise him regarding the progress made before NCLT for the fact whether the RP has taken the charge of this appeal or erstwhile director has been made in charge to pursue this appeal. Put up on 03.11.2025 for final arguments.
104(4)2015 Mazda Cables Pvt. Ltd. vs. APFC Delhi.
Present: Sh. Sumit Kumar, ld. counsel for the Appellant (Vakalatnama filed). Sh. S.N. Mahanta, Ld. Counsel & Sh. Sunil Ranjan, A/R for the Respondent.
Order Dated-01.09.2025
The newly engaged counsel for the appellant requested for an adjournment for going through the case file. Perusal of the case file reveals that on the last date of hearing one Sh. Utkarsh Batra had filed his Vakalatnama and sought time to argue the matter. In the interest of justice, one last opportunity is given to the appellant to argue the matter. It is made clear that if no arguments are advanced on behalf of the appellant on the next date of hearing, the appeal shall be finalized after hearing the arguments of ld. Counsel for the respondent and on basis of the record. Put up on 07.10.2025 for final arguments.
405(4)2016 Mynah Designs vs. APFC Delhi.
Present: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, proxy counsel for Sh. Rajiv Arora, ld. counsel for
the Appellant. Sh. Chakradhar Panda, Ld. Counsel & Sh. Prateek Tyagi, A/R for the Respondent.
Order Dated-01.09.2025
Proxy counsel appearing for the appellant requested for an adjournment stating that the main counsel is unable to appear today. In the interest of justice, adjournment granted. Put up on 08.10.2025 for final arguments.
525(4)2016 Safexpress Pvt. Ltd. vs. APFC Delhi West.
Present: Sh. Harshit Verma, proxy counsel for Sh. S.K. Gupta, ld. counsel for
the Appellant. Sh. Sanjay Agarwal, Ms. Shikha Saloni, Ms. Eesha Sharma, Ms. Alankrita Shukla, Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, Ld. Counsel & Sh. Sandeep, A/R for the Respondent.
Order Dated-01.09.2025
Proxy counsel appearing for the appellant requested for an adjournment stating that the main counsel is unable to appear today. Predecessor of this tribunal had directed both the parties to file the written notes of arguments, however none had filed the same. Today Ld. Counsel for the respondent has filed the written notes of arguments after furnishing a copy of the same to ld. Counsel for the appellant through email on 30.08.2025. Put up on 11.09.2025 for final arguments. In the meanwhile, respondent counsel is directed to furnish the details of CCA allowance on which the respondent wants to assess the dues under section 7A of the EPF & MP Act, 1952.
643(4)2016 Kanika World Wide Pvt. Ltd. vs. APFC Delhi South.
Present: None for the parties.
Order Dated-01.09.2025 Record perused. For the last several occasions, matter has not come on board and it has been adjourned en-block by the predecessor of this tribunal. Let the case be listed for final arguments on 11.11.2025. A notice is to be issued to both the parties through email.