Central Board of Trustees Epfo vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Another

Heard Sri Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hari Prakash Mishra, Advocate, who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 2 today in Court, which is taken on record.

¶12

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the appeal of the respondent no. 2, under Section 7-I of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the stay vacation application filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the order dated 31.07.2025 with the following observations:-

¶13

"Taking into the consideration the provisions of section 7-O of the Act which is quoted here and below as well as the fact that the present appeal has been admitted and the facts in regard to identification of the workers is to be decided on merit.

¶14

Accordingly, the application moved by respondent for vacating of the stay order dated 08.04.2024 is disposed of with the following direction:

¶15

Accordingly, keeping in view of the above said facts the respondent has directed to return 75% of the amount has been recovered by them in pursuance to the impugned order dated 21.12.2023 passed u/s 7-A of the Act and remaining 25% of the amount shall return with the respondent within the period of Four Weeks after receiving the certified copy of the order."

¶16

WRIC No. 4795 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

The order dated 31.07.2025 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ-C No. 38118 of 2025, which was disposed of directing the respondent no. 1 to decide the pending Appeal No. 14 of 2024, within a period of two months.

¶19

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid order was filed before the respondent no. 1. It was informed that by the order passed on the same date i.e. 31.07.2025, the appeal has been allowed and the matter was remanded back to be decided afresh. The order dated 31.07.2025 recorded on the order-sheet is as under:-

¶20

"Appeal is allowed.

¶21

Matter is remanded back to the authority concerned.

¶22

Order passed in separate sheets."

¶23

A perusal of the order-sheet of the Appeal No. 14 of 2024 shows that the arguments were heard on 11.04.2025 and the matter was reserved for order. Subsequently, by the order dated 31.07.2025, during pendency of the appeal, the stay vacation application was disposed of with certain directions. The order dated 31.07.2025, passed on the stay vacation application does not show that the entire appeal was heard, however, the order transcribed on the order-sheet shows that the entire appeal has been allowed and the matter has been remanded back. The order dated 31.07.2025 as transcribed on the order-sheet contains no reason and consideration of the case of the parties to the appeal, which makes it unsustainable.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 prays for a week's time to obtain instructions, as to whether a separate order deciding the appeal has been passed.

¶25

As prayed, list this case as fresh on 24.02.2026, to enable the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, to obtain instructions in the matter.

¶26

(Arun Kumar,J.)

¶27

February 13, 2026 Ranjeet Sahu

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Central Board of Trustees Epfo v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Board of Trustees Epfo v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Neda Bano vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Triloki Nath vs the State of Up and 5 Others

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Dr Ak Tiwari vs Ram Ashish Paswan and Another

Gopal Das vs State of U.P. and 7 Others