Central Government Industrial Tribunal
CGIT1 Delhi Correct Order dated 28.07.2025 in D-1/04/2024 M/s G.K. Motel Pvt. Ltd vs APFC/RPFC on 28 July 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, DELHI D-1/04/2024 M/s G.K. Motel Pvt. Ltd. vs. APFC/RPFC, Delhi South Present: Sh. S.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the appellant Sh. Chakradhar Panda, Ld. Counsel & Sh. Prateek Tyagi, A/R for Respondent. Order Dated-28.07.2025 This is a an appeal preferred by the appellant establishment assailing the order dated 15.12.2023 passed under Section 14B & 7Q of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as the Act) wherein the respondent has assessed an amount of Rs.3,01,993 /- as damages and Rs. 1,48,944/- as interest for belated payment of PF dues for the period 10/2014 to 11/2017. Along with the appeal, the appellant has also filed a misc. application seeking stay on execution of the impugned orders wherein a prayer is made for issuing a stay order after consideration of the grounds and facts as mentioned in the appeal. It is further prayed by the appellant that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant and the respondent had acted in the dual capacity of prosecutor as well as judge misusing the jurisdiction, power and authority. Appellant further stated that there is non-application of mind on the part of respondent and the impugned order has no finding that ‘why the damages/ penalty should be imposed against the appellant’. It is further stated that the appellant establishment is closed in April, 2021 due to Covid-19. It is further stated on part of the appellant that there is no mens rea or actus-reus on part of the establishment and no mitigating circumstances of the appellant establishment were considered while passing the order. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the said application by way of his written reply which is found on record. In the said reply the respondent has denied all the contentions cited in the appeal stating that a notice dated 26.06.2018 was issued to the appellant establishment and one Sh. Santosh Kumar Roy had appeared on 16.05.2019 before the respondent authority and asked for a copy of the show cause notice which was provided to him informing the next date of hearing on 24.05.2019. Thereafter, none appeared on more than five dates fixed. It is further stated on behalf of the respondent that the appellant is a habitual defaulter. I have heard the arguments presented by both the parties and perused the record. This is the appeal where the respondent had passed the order under section 14B & 7Q of the Act for levying the damages and interest for belated payment of EPF dues. The appeal is at the prelimanry stage where the respondent is still required to file it’s reply to the main appeal and final arguments are yet to be heard. Therefore, at this stage this tribunal is required to look into the establishment of prima facie case by the appellant and the circumstances which resulted into belated payment of EPF dues. In the present case, the appellant had appeared before the respondent authority and received the notice from the respondent authority. Further, the appellant has not filed any representation along with the appeal, which according to him was not considered by the respondent authority while passing the impugned orders. Though the appellant has not succeeded in establishing a prima facie case, yet considering the fact that arguments is yet to be heard finally, appellant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within four weeks by way of a FDR favoring ‘Registrar CGIT’ initially for a period of one year having auto renewal mode thereafter within eight weeks. In the meanwhile, interim order, to continue till next date of hearing. It is made clear that if the appellant fails to comply with the condition of stay within the period mentioned above, the stay granted shall be vacated and respondent authority will have the liberty to proceed for recovery of amount as per law. Put up on 03.09.2025 for reporting compliance as well as filing of reply to the main appeal by the respondent. Sd/- Atul Kumar Garg (Presiding Officer)