M/s Rajendra Services vs RPFC on 4 November 2026

1. An appeal was filed by the applicant/appellant under section 7-1 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as to the "Act") challenging the impugned orders dated 14.10.2021 passed by the respondent under section 7A of the Act directing the appellant to deposit the provident fund dues of Rs.8,28,681/- with the respondent. The above-said appeal of the applicant/appellant was dismissed in default vide order dated October 05, 2026. The applicant/appellant has filed an application seeking restoration of the above-said appeal to its original number.

2. The respondent has strongly contested the above-said application by filing written reply to the said application. The respondent has strongly denied the averments made by the M/s Rajendra Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi (North)

applicant/appellant in the above-said application. The respondent has prayed that the above-said application of the applicant/appellant should be dismissed.

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

4. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has argued that the counsel for appellant could not appear before this Tribunal on October 05, 2026 owing to an inadvertent lapse on the part of the previous counsel fbr the appellant. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has further argued that the absence of the appellant or its counsel on October 05, 2026 was not intentional but was due to above-said inadvertent lapse on the part of previous counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the restoration application being filed within t he period of limitation. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has prayed that the application for restoration of appeal should be allowed and the appeal be restored to its original number.

5. Learned counsel fbr the respondent has strongly contested the above-said arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant/appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the applicant and the counsel for the applicant had intentionally absented from the tribunal on October 05, 2026 in order to delay the proceedings. Learned counsel fbr the respondent has prayed that the restoration application of the applicant/appellant should be dismissed with heavy costs.

6. Admittedly, the present application fbr restoration of appeal was filed on October 23, 2026 within the period of limitation.

M/s Rajendra Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Conimissioncr, Delhi (North)

Keeping in view the fact that the appeal was dismissed due to an inadvertent lapse on the part of previous counsel, the absence of counsel for appellant on October 05, 2026 was not willful and intentional. Moreover, the appellant was not going to gain anything by getting its appeal dismissed in default.

7. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, the restoration application of the appellant is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- payable to the respondent and the appeal of appellant is restored to its original number.

8. Now the case is adjourned to 29.04.2027 for arguments on the main appeal.

9. Any amount recovered by the respondent from the appellant in pursuance of the impugned order dated 14.10.2021 of the respondent shall be refunded to the appellant immediately. Any attached bank-account of the appellant shall also be de­ attached by the respondent immediately. > X 一 (Presiding Officer) Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Delhi-1 04.11.2026