Central Government Industrial Tribunal
D-2/27/2024 M/s. AA Foundation for safety vs RPFC on 2 November 2026
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM LABOUR COURT, DELHI
Appeal No. D-2/13/2022, D-2/38/2022, D-2/27/2024
M/s. AA Foundation for safety
Through:- Sh. S.P. Arora and Sh. Rajiv Arora, Ld. counsels for the appellant.
…Appellant
Vs.
RPFC, Raipur, Chhatisgarh …..Respondent
Through:- Sh. B.B. Pradhan, Ld. counsel for the respondent.
Order Dated:- 02.11.2026
By this composite order, I shall dispose of three applications filed by the respondent, one in each of these three appeals bearing Nos. D-2/13/2022, D-2/38/2022 and D-2/27/2024, whereby the respondent has prayed that this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeals, as the impugned orders were passed by the Ld. RPFC, Raipur, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of CGIT, Jabalpur. Along with the applications, the respondent has enclosed a communication dated 11.11.2019, sent by Sh. Satish Chander, Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, to the Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, whereby the entire State of Chhattisgarh was brought within the jurisdiction of CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur.
On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant has opposed the prayer, contending that a part of the cause of action arose in Gurugram, as the recovery warrant was sent to the Gurugram Head Office of the appellant and the entire correspondence was also sent to its Gurugram Office, where the partner/proprietor of the appellant resides. According to the appellant, the cause of action includes a bundle of facts, and it was within the appellant's discretion to file the appeals before this Tribunal or the Tribunal at Jabalpur. He has also referred to the
Page 1 of 5
order passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. D-2/13/2022, wherein the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal had opined that the appellant had the option of filing the appeal before this Tribunal.
I have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both parties and perused the record. Appeals bearing Nos. D-2/13/2022
and D-2/38/2022 have been filed by the appellant assailing the orders dated 10.02.2022 and 09.12.2021, respectively, passed by the respondent under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the respondent assessed provident fund dues amounting to Rs. 15,33,977/- (for the period February 2015 to March 2016) and Rs. 5,03,355/- (for the period April 2016 to November 2016) respectively. So far as Appeal No. D-2/27/2024 is concerned, the same has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 23.01.2024, passed by the respondent under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Act, whereby damages and interest amounting to Rs. 3,34,544/- and Rs. 2,17,259/-respectively, were assessed for the period from February 2015 to November 2022.
The last payment pertaining to the wage month of June 2018
was made belatedly on 21.09.2018. Thereafter, only administrative charges were paid by the appellant.
The appellant herein had obtained the PF code from the EPFO
office at Raipur for carrying out a specific project there, which was reportedly closed in the year 2016 itself. The proceedings giving rise to the present three appeals commenced in 2018. The correspondence exchanged by the RPFC, Raipur, with the appellant at its Gurugram Office is evident from the document at page 78, dated 13.10.2016 of the appeal. A reply was also sent by the appellant from its Gurugram Office to the RPFC, Raipur, as evident from documents A-6 at page 71 and A-7 at page 73. Even the recovery warrant was issued at the Gurugram Office of the appellant.
In this regard, Rule 6 of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, which deals with the place of filing an appeal, is relevant. Rule 6, along with its earlier version, is reproduced hereinbelow:
Page 2 of 5
6. Place of filing appeals.— The appeal shall ordinarily be filed by the appellant with the Registrar of the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the cause of action has arisen.
1. Substituted by G.S.R. 24(E), dated 14th January, 2016, for Rule 6 (w.e.f. 14.01.2016). Rule 6, before substitution, stood as under:
6. Place of filing appeals.—The appeal shall ordinarily be filed by the appellant with the Registrar of the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction:—
(i) the appellant is residing for the time being; or
(ii) the cause of action has arisen; or
(iii) the respondent or any of the respondents against whom relief is sought ordinarily resides. Prior to the amendment in 2016, an appeal could ordinarily be filed by the appellant before the Registrar of the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the appellant was residing for the time being, the cause of action had arisen, or the respondent against whom relief was sought ordinarily resided. However, the rule was subsequently amended, and it was provided that an appeal shall ordinarily be filed by the appellant before the Registrar of the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the cause of action has arisen. Further, it is also pertinent to mention that, by Section 156 of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017, sub-section (1A) was inserted in Section 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads as follows: “(1A) The Industrial Tribunal constituted by the Central Government under sub-section (1) shall also exercise, on and from the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017, the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on the Tribunal referred to in Section 7D of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.” As per the list of CGITs and their respective jurisdictions contained in the notification bearing F. No. Z-13025/32/2016-SS.I, issued by the Ministry of Labour & Employment on 23.06.2017,
Page 3 of 5
there is no specific mention as to which CGIT shall have jurisdiction over Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The said list has also not been amended by the Central Government till now. However, the communication dated 11.11.2019, sent by Sh. Satish Chander, Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, to the Presiding Officer, CGIT- cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, is explanatory in nature, whereby the jurisdiction over the entire State of Chhattisgarh, with regard to EPFAT matters, was vested upon CGIT, Jabalpur. Here, the word 'ordinarily', as used in Rule 6 of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, holds importance. Normally, an appeal is required to be filed before the Registrar of the Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the cause of action has arisen. This Tribunal exercises jurisdiction over Gurugram, Faridabad, Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar and Ghaziabad. However, Ghaziabad and Gautam Buddh Nagar also appear to fall within the jurisdiction of CGIT, Kanpur. Thus, there appears to be an anomaly in the distribution of territorial jurisdiction amongst the CGITs. Further, the said list does not specifically mention the jurisdiction of the CGITs in respect of the State of Haryana. CGIT-I, Chandigarh and CGIT-II, Chandigarh have not been specifically shown to exercise jurisdiction over the State of Haryana, except for Gurugram and Faridabad, which have specifically been mentioned as districts falling within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The use of the word 'ordinarily' in Rule 6 of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, as well as in the earlier rule, indicates that the rule does not contemplate an inflexible requirement and that exceptions may be made in appropriate circumstances. In the present case, the appellant had obtained the PF code for a specific project at Raipur. The said project was subsequently closed, and the PF code was surrendered. Thereafter, the entire correspondence relating to the proceedings was addressed to the Gurugram Office of the appellant. Even the recovery warrant was issued at the said office. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be inferred that a part of the cause of action arose at Gurugram, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Moreover, the office of the respondent is also situated in Delhi, and the appellant's office at Gurugram is in close proximity to
Page 4 of 5
Delhi. Therefore, entertaining the present appeals before this Tribunal would not cause any prejudice to the respondent. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in these three applications filed by the respondent, one in each of the appeals. Accordingly, all three applications stand dismissed. A copy of this order is placed in each of the connected files. Ordered accordingly.
(Atul Kumar Garg) Presiding Officer
Page 5 of 5
Loading citations and judicial treatment…