CGIT1 Delhi Order dated 08.09.2026 in EPF Appeal No. D-1/08/2026 M/s R.K. Solutions vs APFC on 8 September 2026

1. The Appellant had filed the present appeal challenging the order dated December 26, 2023 passed by the respondent under section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as 6the EPF Act5) whereby the amount of Rs.61,67,851/- had been assessed as EPF dues payable by the appellant. 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.

2. The respondent has filed a written reply strongly opposing the said application. The respondent has denied the allegations made by the appellant and has prayed that the application for condonation of delay as well as the main appeal of the appellant against the impugned order dated December 26, 2023 should be dismissed.

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

M/s R.K. Solutions Vs. APFC, Compliance-1, RO-Dclhi, East etc.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the impugned order dated December 26, 2023 was passed ex-parte by the respondent against the present appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the appellant was shocked on 05.03.2026 when it received a show-cause notice why an arrest warrant should not be issued against him. Learned counsel fbr the appellant has pleaded that when the appellant contacted the department on 06.03.2026, the impugned order dated December 26, 2023 had come to the notice of the appellant. Learned counsel fbr the appellant has contended that the period of limitation should be counted from the date of knowledge of the appellant about the impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the present appellant had mistakenly filed the present appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II3 Delhi by relying upon Rule 6 of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 since it was situated at Ghaziabad. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that upon the direction of the CGIT-II, Delhi, the present appeal was withdrawn from there and is being filed in this Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant has fiirther ,stated that the delay in filing the present appeal was not deliberate or intentional. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the delay in filing of the present appeal against the impugned order should be condoned.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has strongly contested the arguments made by the learned counsel for appellant against the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has further argued that Rule 7(2) of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 speci fically prescribed the period of limitation of sixty days from

M/s R.K. Solutions Vs. APFC, Compliance-I, RO-Delhi, East etc.

the date of issue of the impugned order under the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent has further argued that even this Tribunal has no power to condone the period of delay beyond a further period of sixty days in filing of the requisite appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent has prayed that the present appeal is hopelessly time-barred and the application for condonation of delay along with the main appeal should be dismissed.

6. A careful perusal of the record would show that the respondent had specifically sent an email communication on December 26, 2023 to the appellant specifically forwarding a copy of the impugned order dated December 26, 2023 passed under section 7-A of the EPF Act. In this background, the appellant cannot claim that it had no knowledge about the passing of the impugned order dated December 26, 2023 against it by the respondent. On the contrary, it is apparent that the appellant had acquired knowledge about the impugned order of the respondent on December 26, 2023 itself.

7. 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 7-1 of the Act. Even the proviso to Rule 7(2) of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 does not empower this Tribunal to condone the delay beyond a further period of more than sixty days in filing of the requisite appeal against the impugned order.

M/s R.K. Solutions Vs. APFC, Compliance-1, RO-Dellii, East etc.

8. Admittedly, the present appeal of the appellant was filed on March 30, 2026 after a delay of about more than two years and three months from the date of impugned order dated December 26, 2023 under section 7-A of the EPF Act. Even if the plea of appellant regarding mistakenly filing the present appeal initially before Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, Delhi is accepted, the position would not change much. Admittedly, the present appeal was initially filed before CGIT-II, Delhi in the month of March, 2026 and withdrawn from there in the month of March, 2026 itself on 19.03.2026. Even if this very short period of a few days in the month of March, 2026 is excluded by giving the benefit of section 14 of Limitation Act, the substantive position would remain almost the same. Accordingly, the present appeal of the appellant is hopelessly time-barred and cannot be entertained by this Tribunal.

9. Hence, the present appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed. Record of the case file be consigned to Record Room./ (Ajay Kun^Jam) Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Delhi-1 08.09.2026