CGIT1 Delhi Order dated 06.10.2026 in EPF Appeal No. D-1/35/2026 M/s ACME Excellent Management Pvt. Ltd vs RPFC Delhi North on 6 October 2026

1. DELH-1 D-1/35/2026 M/s ACME Excellent Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional PF Commissioner-I, Delhi (North) Present: Sh. N.K. Mishra, counsel for the appellant. Ms. Santawana Aggarwal, Aggarwal, respondent. counsel for the The Appellant had filed the present appeal challenging the orders dated June 16, 2026 passed by the Respondent under section 14B and section 7-0 of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as the Act') whereby the amount of Rs. 82,09,195/ as damages payable by the appellant and Rs.1,02,89,630/- had been assessed as interest-liability payable by the appellant under the Act. The office had reported the delay in filing the appeal for which the appellant had filed the application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated at bar that she does not want to file any written reply to the application for condonation of delay but would advance the oral arguments only qua the said application. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that he had been suffering from typhoid fever for a long time after the passing of the impugned orders dated June 16, 2026 by the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that due to his serious illness, he was not able to prepare and file the requisite appeal against the impugned orders passed by the respondent within the period of limitation. Learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that as soon as he recovered from his

5. M/s ACME Excellent Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional PF Commissioner-l, Delbi (North)

6. serious illness, he had prepared and filed the present appeal against the impugned orders on September 15, 2026. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the delay of ninety days in filing of the present appeal was not intentional and should be condoned by the tribunal by allowing the application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the respondent has strongly contested the above said application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that even if the counsel for the appellant was suffering from typhoid, the appeal could be filed by another counsel or by the junior of the present counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent has further argued that the present appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation due to carelessness of the appellant and his counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent has pleaded that the ground of illness of the counsel for the appellant was not a sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent has prayed that the application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal should be dismissed. Rule 7(2) of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 specifically provides the limitation period of sixty days from the date of issue of the impugned order for filing of the requisite appeal under section 7-I of the Act. However, the proviso to Rule 7(2) of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 specifically empowers this tribunal to condone the further period of delay to the extent of sixty more days for sufficient cause. Accordingly, as per the above said provision, this tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing of appeal up to a maximum of one hundred and twenty days from the date of the impugned orders.

M/s ACME Excellent Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional PF Commissioner-1, Delhi (North)

7.

8.

9. As reported by the office, the present appeal was filed by the appellant after a period of ninety days from the date of passing of the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the appellant has duly explained that he could not file the present appeal within the limitation period because he had been suffering from acute typhoid fever for a long time after the passing of the impugned orders by the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that as soon as he recovered from his serious illness, he had prepared and filed the present appeal against the impugned orders on September 15, 2026. The appellant was not going to gain anything by filing the present appeal at a belated stage. In the given facts and circumstances explained by the appellant, the delay in filing of the present appeal by the appellant is hereby condoned. The application of the appellant stands disposed off accordingly.

10. Adjourned to 16.12.2026 for filing of reply to the stay application as well as to the main appeal by the respondent. In the meantime, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps to recover the amounts under the impugned orders till the next date of hearing. (Ajay Kumar Jain) Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Delhi-1 06.10.2026