Cgit award
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal allowed an application to waive the pre-deposit under Section 7-O of the EPF Act due to an erroneously hasty enquiry. Subsequent orders addressed adjournments filed by appellants due to water logging or representative absence, and waived costs imposed on the respondent department for procedural delays.
What did the court decide?
Application for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 7-O allowed; operation of impugned order stayed until finalization of appeal.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, No. 1 DELHI
Item No. 01
D-1/24/2023
M/s Indraprastha Services vs. APFC/RPFC, Delhi West.
Present: Sh. Rajiv Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the appellant. Sh. Sandeep Vishnu with Sandeep, Ld. Counsels for the respondent.
Order dated-02.09.2025
Counsel for the appellant has pressed an application under section 7O of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) seeking waiver of condition of pre-deposit. He has stated that entire case set out by the respondent is false. Appellant has assailed the order, stating that there was no basis to initiate any enquiry against the appellant. The Enquiry was held in haste and pursuant to an e-mail received from the Head office of the respondent, instructing to carry inspection of the records of the establishment. Within two days, the enquiry officer investigated the matter and, on the same day, found that the two establishments namely Ms. Indraprastha Services and M/s Indraprastha Intercity Travels were operating at the same premises. He had concluded that both were the same, as such enquiry has been done.
On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel has stated that some amount should be deposited, although, he has admitted that there was undue haste in concluding the enquiry. Despite this, he had defended the order.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal should waive the pre-deposit requirement under Section 7-O of the EPF Act given the undue haste in the enquiry and lack of basis for initiation.
How to dispose of miscellaneous applications and adjournments in the absence of counsel or due to weather-related impediments affecting hearings.
Whether the Tribunal should waive the cost imposed on the department for delaying the filing of a reply.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s Indraprastha Services
- respondent
APFC/RPFC, Delhi West
- appellant
M/s PCI Limited
- respondent
APFC/RPFC, Delhi North
- appellant
M/s Multiples Zones India Pvt. Ltd.
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court