CGIT1 Delhi Order dated 30.09.2026 in EPF Appeal No. D-1/01/2026 M/s Delhi Public School vs APFC/RPFC Delhi on 30 September 2026

1. An appeal was filed by the appellant challenging the impugned orders dated 21.11.2025 passed by the respondent under section 14B and section 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called as "the EPF Act"). The respondent had failed to file its reply to the main appeal within the period of one month firom date of service of appeal. On 06.08.2026, the respondent wanted to file its reply to the main appeal. However, the appellant had filed an application mainly seeking a declaration that respondent has no right to file its reply without seeking the prior leave of Tribunal. The appellant had also filed another application mainly seeking the closure of the right of respondent to file its reply to the appeal.

2. The respondent has strongly contested both the above-said applications by filing a single reply to both the said applications. Learned counsel for the respondent made a statement in writing that his above-said reply should be read as the reply to both the applications of the appellant. The respondent has strongly denied the averments made by the appellant in the above-said applications. The respondent has prayed that both the above-said applications of the appellant should be dismissed.

3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondent was required to file its reply to the main appeal of the appellant within a period of one month under the Rule 12(1) of The Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the Rule 12(5) of The Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 permits the Tribunal to allow the respondent to file its reply to the main appeal after the expiry of above-said period. Learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that the respondent has no right to file its reply to the main appeal after the expiry of the prescribed period without seeking the leave of the Tribunal by filing a specific application fbr this purpose. Referring to the Rule 12(1) and the Rule 25(viii) of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent had also not moved any application before the Registrar fbr extention of time for filing reply to the appeal. Learned counsel fbr the appellant has further pleaded that the discipline introduced by The Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 cannot be allowed to be defeated by the respondent on baseless grounds. Learned counsel fbr the appellant has prayed that the reply by the respondent to the main appeal should not be permitted to be filed and the right of respondent to file its reply to the appeal should be closed. Reliance in this behalf was placed upon the ruling of Hon5ble Madras High Court in Ramesh Flowers Private Limited Vs. Sumit Srimal 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 4785 and three orders passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Delhi-IL

5. Learned counsel fbr the respondent has strongly contested the above-said arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant/appellant. Learned counsel fbr the respondent has argued that there is no provision in Rule 12(1) and Rule 12(5) of The Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 fbr preventing the respondent from filing its reply to the appeal and for striking off the right of respondent to file its reply to the

appeal of appellant. Learned counsel fbr the respondent has further argued that the appellant was "exempted establishment” and the present appeal of appellant involved complicated questions of facts and law. Learned counsel fbr the respondent has pleaded that voluminous records had to be collected and studied to properly prepare the reply to the appeal of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent has fiirther pleaded that the respondent had no intention to delay the filing of reply to the main appeal of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the respondent wanted to file the reply to the main appeal on 06.08.2026 but was prevented by the appellant from doing so by filing two applications fbr closing the right of respondent to file the reply. Learned counsel fbr the respondent has contended that some delay in filing of the reply to the main appeal of the appellant was caused due to the above-mentioned reasons only. Learned counsel for the respondent has prayed that both the applications of the appellant had no substance and should be dismissed. Reliance in this behalf was placed upon the rulings cited as Grindlays Bank Limited Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Others 1981 AIR 606 and Pearson India Education Services Private Limited Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, AIRONLINE 2021 DEL 1998.

6. For a proper decision of this matter, it is necessary to refer to the Rule no. 12(1) and Rule no. 12(5) of The Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 relating to the time-limit for filing reply to the appeal under the EPF Act.

7. Rule 12(1) of The Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 provides the period of one month of the service of notice of appeal upon the respondent to file the reply to appeal.

8. Rule 12(5) of The Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 empowers the Tribunal to allow filing of the reply after the expiry prescribed period.

9. The ruling of Hon'ble Madras High Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant was delivered in the context of Order 8, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure only. However, the Employees, Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 along with The Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 is a Special Act laying down its own procedure. There is no provision providing fbr filing a separate application by the respondent to seek the leave of the Tribunal for filing its reply to the appeal in The Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 or in the Employees5 Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

10. It is necessary to refer to certain rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this behalf.

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that the processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. In this view, I am guided by the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and another Vs. Shamlal Murari and another, 1976 AIR 1177.

12. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had observed that the court must always take a justice-oriented approach while considering an application for delay. In this view, I am fortified by the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat Vs. G. Arumugam, (2015) 3 SCC 569.

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had also observed that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. In this view, I am guided by the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107.

14. I have carefully examined the reasons furnished by the respondent due to which the filing of reply by the respondent to the main appeal was delayed. I am satisfied that there was no willful or intentional delay on the part of the respondent in filing the reply to the appeal. In view of the explanation furnished by the respondent, the length of the delay in filing reply and considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as noted above, it is a fit case for allowing the respondent to file its reply to the main appeal of the appellant.

15. In these premises, both the applications filed by the appellant do not have any substance and are dismissed.

16. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to file its reply to the main appeal today itself to be taken on the record.

17. Case is adjourned to 23.02.2027 for arguments upon the main appeal of the appellant. (Ajay Kun^r^ain) Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Delhi-1 30.09.2026