M/s Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs APFC on 2 November 2026

1.

2.

3.

4. DELHI-1 D-1/16/2026

M/s Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Assistant PF Commissioner, RO, Delhi (North). Present: Sh. Shikhar Rusia, counsel for the appellant. Sh. Kamal Kant Jha, counsel for the respondent. The appellant had filed the present appeal challenging the orders dated January 06, 2026 passed by the respondent under section 14B and section 7-Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the EPF Act') whereby the amount ofRs.8,36,439/- had been assessed as damages payable by the appellant under the EPF Act and an amount of Rs.5,57,200/- was assessed as interest-liability payable by the appellant under the EPF 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. The respondent has not fileda written reply to the application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for respondent has stated at that he would argue upon the application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal without filing a written reply. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant is mandatorily bound by the statutory obligations and had to adhere

5. M/s Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Assitant PF Commissioner, R0, Delhi (North)

to the requirement of necessary administrative approvals due to which delay had occurred. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the present appeal involved pertinent question of facts and law which warrant urgent consideration. Learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that the appellant is a public government organization working on the principle of no profit no basis. Learned counsel for the appellant has further pleaded that the execution of the impugned orders would result in the diversion of public funds meant for essential civic services and infrastructure development. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned order of the respondent did not indicate the date upon which the copy of the impugned order was sent to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the delay in filing of the present appeal was not intentional and should be condoned by the tribunal by allowing the application for condonation of delay. Reliance in this behalf was placed upon the rulings cited as Mool Chandra v. Union of India 2024 SCC Online SC 1878 and Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through LRs & others v. Union of India & another (2023) 10 SCC

531. Learned counsel for the respondent has strongly contested the averments made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent has further argued that Rule 7(2) of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 specifically prescribed the period of limitation of sixty days from 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 by a further period of sixty days in filing of the requisite appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent has prayed that the :

6.

7.

8. M/s Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Assitant PF Commissioner, RO, Delhi (North)

present appeal is hopelessly time-barred and the application for condonation of delay along with the main 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 7-1 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 by a further period of more than sixty days in filing of the requisite appeal against the impugned order. Accordingly, it is apparent that this tribunal can allow the condonation of delay up to a maximum period of one hundred twenty days in case of sufficient cause. Admittedly, the present appeal of the appellant was filed on May 29, 2026 after a delay of about one hundred forty two days from the date of impugned orders dated January 06, 2026 under sections 14B and section 7-Q of the EPF Act. Accordingly, the present appeal of the appellant is hopelessly time-barred and cannot be entertained by this Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed. Record of the case file be consigned to Record Room. (Presiding Officer) Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Delhi-1 02.11.2026