Central Government Industrial Tribunal
CGIT2 Delhi Order dated 03.11.2026 passed in Appeal No. D-2/29/2026 M/s. Baghpat Industries Ltd vs APFC/RPFC on 3 November 2026
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DELHI
Appeal No. D-2/29/2026
M/s. Baghpat Industries Ltd.
…Appellant
Through:- Sh. Arvind Kumar, Ld. counsel for the appellant.
Vs.
APFC/RPFC, Meerut …..Respondent
Through:-Sh. S.N. Mahanta, Ld. counsel for the respondent.
Order Dated:- 03.11.2026
This order shall dispose of an application filed by the respondent under Rule 21 of the CGIT (Procedure) Rules read with Section 151 CPC, seeking dismissal of the appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and maintainability.
The respondent, in its application, has stated that the establishment, i.e., M/s Baghpat Industries Limited, was allotted PF Code No. MR/MRT/0017075000 by the Regional PF Office, Meerut, as the establishment was carrying on its business from its registered office at Baghpat-Delhi-Saharanpur Road, Baghpat, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional PF Office, Meerut. The establishment failed to deposit PF dues within the statutory period of 15 days for the period from 04/1996 to 06/2026. Consequently, an enquiry under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was initiated against the establishment, and the PF authority passed two separate orders under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Act, assessing damages and interest to the tune of Rs. 32,66,114/- and Rs. 31,02,884/-, respectively.
It is submitted that, in its reply to the stay application under Section 7-O of the Act and in the main appeal, the respondent had raised a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction. In paragraph 8 of the appeal, under the heading ‘Jurisdiction of Tribunal’, the appellant declared that the subject matter of the impugned order against which redressal was sought fell within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, which, according to the respondent, is incorrect. It is contended that this
Tribunal lacks both territorial jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. It is further submitted that, as per the notification dated 23.06.2017, CGIT, Kanpur, has jurisdiction over District Baghpat.
The respondent has also relied upon various judicial precedents in support of its contentions. Lastly, the respondent has sought dismissal of the appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
On the other hand, the appellant did not file a reply to the application and proceeded to argue the matter. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that this Tribunal had already entertained the appeal and passed an interim order of restraint, and that the respondent was now seeking to avoid proceedings before this Tribunal. The appellant further submitted that District Baghpat did not exist when the PF code was allotted to the establishment and that Baghpat was then part of District Meerut. At that time, there was only one appellate Tribunal situated in Delhi to hear appeals arising out of orders passed by APFCs/RPFCs.
I have heard the arguments advanced by the parties and perused the record of the appeal. Before deciding the present application, it is necessary to briefly reproduce the history of the case.
Earlier, an assessment was made by the Regional Office, Meerut, under Section 7A of the Act against the appellant on 20.05.2022, whereby the respondent had determined an amount of Rs. 56,62,836/- for the period from 03/2012 to 04/2017. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal. Upon finding that the order had been passed ex parte, this Tribunal remanded the matter for reassessment of the dues determined by the respondent under Section 7A of the Act vide order dated 19.05.2025. Pursuant to the said order, the Ld. RPFC reassessed the dues at Rs. 21,12,378/- on 30.03.2026 noting the fact that the appellant was closed in the year 2016 itself. The appellant complied with the said order in June 2026.
It is also important to mention that, during the course of the enquiry under Section 7A of the Act, the respondent/applicant herein had attached properties bearing Nos. 815 and 1247, Baghpat. While remanding the matter for fresh adjudication, this Tribunal refrained from giving effect to the de-attachment of the said properties. However, despite the deposit of the amount assessed under Section 7A of the Act, the respondent did not release the properties.
Thereafter, upon an application filed by the appellant in this regard, this Tribunal, vide order dated 27.08.2026, directed the respondent to de-attach the aforesaid properties within two weeks. It was also directed that the amount deposited by the appellant be credited to the accounts of the subscribers. However, neither of these directions was complied with. Instead of ensuring compliance with the orders, the department filed a review/recall application, which was dismissed by this Tribunal on 16.09.2026. The respondent was thereafter directed to de- attach the properties of the appellant by the evening of 17.09.2026.
However, that order was also not complied with. In these circumstances, this Tribunal was constrained to issue notice for contempt against the respondent. The respondent filed the writ petition in High Court of Delhi.
It is against the aforesaid background that the present application has been filed seeking dismissal of the appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
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:
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.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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.” The appellant herein had obtained a code from EPFO, Meerut. At that time, Baghpat was not a district. Further, there was only one appellate Tribunal for EPF Act, for whole of the India. Thereafter, one Tribunal at Bangalore was also established. By the Finance Act, 2017, all 22 CGITs were entrusted the jurisdiction under the EPF & MP Act, 1952, to entertain an appeal. 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. However, in special or extra-ordinary circumstances, an appeal can be entertained by any Tribunal. The facts mentioned in the application demonstrates that the respondent wants to avoid the jurisdiction of this Tribunal anyhow. Earlier in the appeal filed under section 7A of the Act by the appellant assailing the orders passed by the respondent dated 20.05.2022, the respondent didn’t raise any objection to the jurisdiction of this appeal. That appeal was remanded after hearing both sides. The respondent has filed this application only after the contempt notice was issued, and this Tribunal had already stayed the impugned order under this appeal, and the matter was listed only for arguments on the stay application.
In these circumstances, the respondent cannot be allowed to play hot and cold. Once the respondent has admitted the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, it cannot later retract from the consequences. Hence, the application, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed.
(Atul Kumar Garg) Presiding Officer