CGIT2 Delhi Order dated 15.09.2026 in EPF appeal no. D-2/19/2021 Ghatak Security Services vs APFC/RPFC Noida on 15 September 2026

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, No.2 DELHI; Appeal no. D-2/19/2021

M/s. Ghatak Security Services 102, Bhagmal, Complex, Naya Bans Market Sector-13, Noida, UP-201301.

Through: - Sh. Ravi Ranjan Tripathi, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant.

…Appellant Vs. RPFC/ APFC, Noida. Employees’ Provident Fund OrganizaƟon, Regional Office Noida, Nidhi Bhaswan, A-2c, Sector-24, Noida-201301.

Through: - Sh. BB Pradhan, Ld. Counsel along with Sh. Ravindra Kumar, AR for the Respondent …Respondent Order dated: - 15.09.2026

Appellant, a covered establishment under the EPF & MP Act (Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act), 1952 has assailed the order passed by the Respondent dated 26.02.2021 whereby the Respondent has determined the dues to the tune of Rs. 6,69,133/- under Sec. 7A for the period 07/2015 to 03/2017 on various grounds, inter alia, that the impugned order is non-speaking, stereotype, crypƟc order passed without applicaƟon of judicial mind and passed without having jurisdicƟon on the subject maƩer of the case; Respondent has passed impugned order arbitrarily in contravenƟon of SecƟon 7A of the Act; Respondent neither supplied the copy of EO report dated 17.02.2021 for rebuƩal nor granted sufficient opportunity; inquiry officer failed to summon the complainant for

recording their evidence / statement and deprived the Respondent from cross-examining EO; impugned order has been passed mechanically without applicaƟon of mind; Respondent authority did not consider the contenƟons raised in leƩer dated 25.08.2020 and 22.09.2020; assessing officer did not follow the guidelines passed by EPF department in respect of iniƟaƟon of 7A inquiry; Respondent has blindly followed and relied upon the report of the AEO and has determined the PF dues against the PeƟƟoner without proper and just applicaƟon of mind. He submiƩed that the appeal be allowed and order passed by Respondent determining the dues to the tune of Rs. 6,69,133/- under SecƟon 7A be set-aside and recalled.

Respondent has filed the counter reply of the appeal. Respondent took the preliminary objecƟon denying all allegaƟons, claims, demands contained in the instant appeal filed by the Appellant except and to the extent, specifically admiƩed herein. He further submiƩed that Employee Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 is a social legislaƟon for providing social security to the employees working in any scheduled industry or class of establishment engaging 20 or more person on any day. He has further menƟoned about the purpose of this Act and the duƟes cast upon the Respondent for determining the dues.

So far so the Reply in Para No. 6 is concerned, the Respondent admiƩed the Para No. 6(I) and 6(II); Para No. 6(III) was denied and misleading; Para No. 6(IV) was admiƩed, Para No. 6 (V) was denied being misleading and wrong. So far as Para No.6(VI), is concerned, he submiƩed that noƟce was issued aŌer due process of law and an inquiry was conducted well within the jurisdicƟon of 7A authority. He submiƩed appeal is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard the argument at bar, gone through the record, as well as the order in quesƟon. In Pg No. 28 of the appeal, which is the part of the judgment, Assessing Officer has submiƩed the DR report and relied upon the DR report and passed the order in toto without any buzz. The DR report is reproduced herein:

“7A REPORT Dated- 17.02.2021

Sub: - Submission of report upon 7A enquiry in respect of establishment Ms Ghatak Security Services, 102A, Bhagmal Complex, Sector-15, Noida having PF code no. MRNOI/60229 for the period from 08/13 to 11/19 reg- Ref:- 7A NoƟce no. 14621/EPFO/UP/RO/NOI/C-III/MR/NOI/60229 Dated 07.01.2020.

Sir, With reference to above cited subject and reference, the undersigned visited the address of the establishment and found no such establishment working at the given address. AŌer that the undersigned have contacted on mobile number available through establishment master, the other side Mr. Devender Prasad Nomani told that he is conƟnuously appearing at every date of proceeding and assured about the producƟon of available records related with 7A enquiry. He further stated that the consultant who was working for the establishment had absconded along with all records of the establishment like- salary/wages sheet, aƩendance sheet, and copy of ECR and Challan etc. without any prior informaƟon and presently he is sƟll not traceable in spite of repeated /several number of efforts and thus expressed his inability to provide the documents. Further the establishment has also submiƩed its leƩer dated 16- 02-2021 vide which the proprietor of the establishment stated that all the ex employee had already received their full amount of PF alongwith difference of PF amount claims outside and there is no complaint is pending as on date against any single security guard whose names are menƟoned in the copy of complaints, which can be verified from the complainant also and in the support of the same the establishment is also enclosing the copies of full and final seƩlement of all pending dues including the payment of difference of PF dues received and duly signed by the complainants. EsƩ. also submiƩed vide its leƩer dated 16.02.2021 that presently esƩ. has no any business acƟvity since March 2019 and esƩ. is permanently closed. The same statement has also been given by the proprietor of the establishment repeatedly on every date of proceedings and therefore the undersigned have leŌ no any opƟon, except to rely upon the records available in the office of RPFC Noida as well as records as

provided by the principal employers to whom M/s. Ghatak Security have supplied their manpower. Hence relied upon the records as produced by the different parƟes to whom M/s Ghatak Security Services has supplied his manpower since 08/13 to 03/19 which are available with 7A file the undersigned have gone through the enƟre above said records with reference to the data/informaƟon available in the system i.e. form 24 along with reconciled deposit statement of the monthly remiƩed dues and system generated Payment posiƟon and accordingly the undersigned have calculated the difference of dues amounƟng Rs. 669133/- for the period from 07/15 to 03/17 whose PF A/c number wise employees details against whom difference have been calculated, are separately aƩached with this report along with copy of correct ECR as reported by principle employers. The Account wise detail of short deposited amount is as under:- Period Wages A/c no. 1 A/c no.

A/c no. X A/c no. XXI A/c no. XXII Total to

2690092 418341 15848 222413 12531

66913

Therefore the establishment is directed to deposit the above said difference of dues by filling of ECR in r/o all those employees who were deployed at the site of GAIL Noida including others for the period 07/15 to 09/17 and report the compliance of the above to O/o the RPFC NOIDA.

Encl: -

1. CalculaƟon sheet, Bank details, copy of Form/5a, copy of DSC, copy of correct ECR provided by the principal employers. (YOGESH DWIVEDI) ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, RO NOIDA To, M/s. Ghatak Security Services 102A, Bhagmal complex Sector-15, Noida”

The Departmental RepresentaƟve has relied upon the record as produced by the different parƟes to whom the establishment has supplied

the manpower since the past year 08/2013 to 03/2019 and are available with 7A file, and taking the informaƟon Form 24 calculated the difference of dues amounƟng to Rs. 6,69,133/- for the period 7/2015 to 03/2017 whose PF account number-wise employee detail against whom difference has been calculated.

However, in support of their contenƟon, Respondent has failed to produce any records on which the Departmental RepresentaƟve has relied and assessed the dues. No record whatsoever of the principal employer has been found on record produced by the Respondent, as admiƩed by Shri B.B. Pradhan, learned counsel. Form number 24 has been produced by the Respondent on 12.8.2026. However, from the perusal of the Form 24, as discussed by the Departmental RepresentaƟve Mr. Gurpreet Singh with the Registrar of this Tribunal, nothing has been carved out regarding the number of employees and their contribuƟon paid during the period of inquiry.

When the basis of assessment has not been produced by the Respondent Department, then the order cannot be sustained. Therefore, the order passed by the Respondent Department determining the dues of Rs. 6,69,133/- is recalled and set aside. The appeal is allowed. The records of this appeal are consigned to record room. Original record of the respondent is returned forthwith. The office is directed to release the FDR bearing account number 50300560634865, worth Rs. 1,34,000/- to the appellant aŌer receiving acknowledgement, which was deposited by the appellant in compliance with the order passed by this Tribunal under secƟon 7-O of the Act.

Date: 15.09.2026

ATUL KUMAR GARG

(Presiding Officer) CGIT-Cum- Labour Court-II