EPF matters orders dated 08.08.2025 CGIT-1 Delhi on 8 August 2025

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM

LABOUR COURT, DELHI

D-1/55/2022 M/s Orion Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. APFC, Delhi (Central).

Present: Sh. Rajiv Arora, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

Order dated-08.08.2025 Ld. Counsel for the appellant has stated that he was communicated by Sh. Yash Narayan, proxy for Sh. Rajesh Kumar ld. Counsel for the respondent about busyness of the main counsel in High Court in some urgent matter. Hence, the matter is adjourned to 10.10.2025 for arguments on the misc. application. In the meanwhile, interim order to continue till next date of hearing.

Presiding Officer

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM

LABOUR COURT, DELHI

D-1/23/2025 M/s Greenfields Public Schools Vs. APFC/RPFC, Delhi East.

Present: Sh. S.K. Khanna, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.

Sh. S.N. Mahanta, Ld. Counsel for the respondent.

Order dated-08.08.2025

Ld. Counsel for both the parties requested for an adjournment. In the interest of justice, adjournment is granted. Put up on 12.08.2025 for arguments on the misc. application. In the meanwhile, interim orders to continue till next date of hearing.

Presiding Officer

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM

LABOUR COURT, DELHI

D-1/24/2025 M/s Greenfields Public Schools Vs. APFC/RPFC, Delhi East.

Present: Sh. S.K. Khanna, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.

Sh. S.N. Mahanta, Ld. Counsel for the respondent.

Order dated-08.08.2025

List the matter along with appeal no. D-1/23/2025. In the meanwhile, interim orders to continue till next date of hearing.

Presiding Officer

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM

LABOUR COURT, DELHI

D-1/17/2023 M/s B. Budh Singh Gulab Singh Vs. APFC/RPFC, Delhi West.

Present: Sh. Chetan Singh, proxy for the appellant.

Ms. Neeru, (for Sh. B.B. Pradhan) for the respondent.

Order dated-08.08.2025

Proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant seeks more time to file the rejoinder. In the interest of justice, prayer to grant more time is allowed as a last chance. Put up on 12.09.2025 for filing of rejoinder.

Presiding Officer

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM

LABOUR COURT, DELHI

D-1/81/2024 M/s Centre for Womens’s Development Studies Vs. APFC, Delhi (Central).

Present: Sh. Ashwani Singh, proxy for the appellant.

Sh. Akshay Anand, proxy for the respondent.

Order dated-08.08.2025 Proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has filed the reply of the appeal. Reply of the stay application is required to file which the respondent has not filed.

Record further reveals that appellant has assailed the order passed u/s 14B and 7Q of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 assessing an amount of Rs.30,56,464/- & Rs. 21,37,469/- respectively.

In these circumstances, last opportunity is given to the respondent for filing the reply of the stay application, otherwise, tribunal will decide the matter on basis of the record. Put up on 30.09.2025 for arguments. Copy of this order is sent to both the parties through email. In the meanwhile, interim order to continue till next date of hearing.

Presiding Officer

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM

LABOUR COURT, DELHI

D-1/82/2024 M/s Centre for Womens’s Development Studies Vs. APFC, Delhi (Central).

Present: Sh. Ashwani Singh, proxy for the appellant.

Sh. Akshay Anand, proxy for the respondent.

Order dated-08.08.2025 Present appeal is in regard to the order passed u/s 14B and 7Q of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 for the period of twenty days. According to the appellant, the delay occurred due to late submission of the security, for which the exemption was surrendered. Put up on 30.09.2025. In the meanwhile, interim order to continue till next date of hearing.

Presiding Officer

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI Appeal No. D-1/71/2024 M/s MI2C Security and Facilities Pvt. Ltd. vs. APFC/RPFC, Delhi (North).

Present: Sh. Rajiv Arora, proxy, appearing for Sh. S.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.

Sh. Mahendra Singh Meena, AR for the respondent.

ORDER DATED:- 08.08.2025. Compliance report of the deposit of amount assessed under section 7Q of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 is on record. The respondent is required to file a reply to the main appeal. However, the AR for the respondent has sought an adjournment on the ground of his counsel’s absence. In view of the above request, one more opportunity is granted to the respondent to file its reply on 15.09.2025.

At 03:45 PM Adv. Sh. Tejasvi Goel appeared and filed an authority letter on behalf of the respondent.

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI Appeal No. D-1/37/2024 M/s. Rangi International Pvt. Ltd. vs. APFC/RPFC, Delhi East. Present:

None for the appellant.

Sh. Sunil Ranjan, AR for the respondent.

ORDER DATED:- 08.08.2025. On the last date of hearing, the appellant was directed to deposit to amount assessed under section 7Q of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as this tribunal had observed that the appeal under section 7Q of the Act does not lie. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellant has been negligent. Their non-appearance in the proceedings has been marked on several dates, i.e. 19.07.2024, 24.10.2024 and 23.04.2025. On the last date of hearing, the appellant’s counsel was present and this tribunal had passed an order directing the appellant to deposit the amount assessed under section 7Q of the Act and report compliance. Today, instead of reporting compliance, the appellant has neither participated in the proceedings nor filed any application seeking an adjournment. In light of the above facts, the present appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution. The respondent is at liberty to execute the impugned order. The office is directed to consign the record to the record room.

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI Appeal No. 161(4)2013 M/s Jadli Foods India Pvt. Ltd. vs. APFC/RPFC, Delhi North. Present:

Sh. Rajiv Arora, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. Sh. Mahender Meena, A/R for the Respondent.

ORDER DATED:- 08.08.2025. The AR for the respondent stated that he had informed the department the same day the order was passed, wherein this tribunal had directed the respondent to ensure the presence of counsel. However, the department has not given any response. The AR further submitted that he received a message from the counsel for the respondent regarding his inability to appear before the tribunal due to the death of his sister. The message was received from mobile number 9810268484.

In view of the above submissions, the matter is adjourned to 11.09.2025 for final arguments.

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI Appeal No. 919(4)2012 M/s Jhalani Tools India Ltd. vs. APFC, Delhi Present:

None for the Appellant. Sh. Chakradhar Panda, Ld. Counsel & Sh. Prateek Tyagi, A/R for the Respondent.

ORDER DATED:- 08.08.2025. Record perused. The matter is listed today for filing of reply to the respondent’s application seeking dismissal of the present appeal with exemplary costs, on the ground that the appellant has taken the tribunal for a ride. It is an admitted fact that the appellant company went into liquidation in 2003, whereas the impugned order was passed in the year 2012 by the Ld. RPFC assessing the damages. The appeal is being prosecuted by the ex-director of the company who has no connection at all with the appellant at present. On the last date of hearing, the appellant had sought an adjournment to file a reply to the application. In view of the above, a final opportunity is granted to the appellant to file a reply to the application on 27.08.2025, failing which the application shall be decided on the submissions of the respondent alone. A copy of this order be sent to the counsel for the appellant via e-mail.

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI Appeal No. D-1/12/2017 Mas Designs vs. APFC, Delhi (South) Present:

Sh. Krishan Kartik, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.

Sh. Chakradhar Panda, Ld. Counsel for the respondent.

ORDER DATED:- 08.08.2025. I have heard the arguments on behalf of the appellant. The counsel for the respondent submits that he will file the written arguments shortly. In view of the above, the matter is listed for further arguments on 29.08.2025.

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI Appeal No. D-1/07/2020 M/s Wear well India Pvt. Ltd. vs. APFC, Delhi (East) Present:

Sh. S.K. Khanna, Ld. counsel for the Appellant. Sh. Sunil Ranjan, A/R for the Respondent.

ORDER DATED:- 08.08.2025. The AR for the respondent has sought an adjournment on the ground of his counsel’s unavailability.

In view of the above request, the matter is adjourned to 02.09.2025 for final arguments.

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI Appeal No. D-1/26/2025 M/s Prehari Cyber Security Facilities Pvt. Ltd. vs. APFC/RPFC, Delhi (North).

Present: Sh. Rajkumar, proxy appearing on behalf of Sh. S.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the appellant. Ms. Neeru, AR for the respondent.

ORDER DATED:- 08.08.2025. The AR for the appellant has sought an adjournment on the ground of absence of his senior counsel. Moreover, the AR for the respondent initially submitted that his counsel would appear by 4 PM. However, it is already past 4 PM and he has not appeared.

Record perused. The matter is listed today for filing of reply to the main appeal as well as consideration of the misc. application.

In view of the absence of counsels for both parties, the matter is adjourned to 08.09.2025 for the same purpose.

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI Appeal No. D-1/59/2024 Ms. Chandeswar Paswan. vs. APFC, Delhi (East) Present:

None for the Appellant. Sh. S.N. Mahanta, Ld. Counsel along with Sh. Sunil Ranjan, AR for the Respondent.

ORDER DATED:- 08.08.2025. Record perused. The office was directed to inform the appellant to appear today in view of the fact that they were not present on the last date of hearing. However, despite service of notice on their e-mail address ‘mdeepanshu350@gmail.com, they have failed to appear. The record further reveals that this appeal had first come up for hearing on 22.10.2024., when it was found to be within limitation. On the same day, the respondent was restrained from taking further steps towards recovery. Vide order dated 18.02.2025, the appellant was not present, and the matter was adjourned for arguments on the misc. application filed under section 7O of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Adv. Deepanshu Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the appellant appeared on two subsequent hearing thereafter. However, for the last two dates, the appellant has failed to appear. From the above discussion, it appears that the appellant has been enjoying the interim orders without any effort to dispose of the application filed under section 7O of the Act. In these circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution. The interim order also stands vacated. The respondent is at liberty to execute the impugned order.