Cgit award
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal restored an appeal dismissed for default due to the appellant's counsel filing the wrong adjournment date. In other matters, the Tribunal granted adjournments, listed cases for arguments, or directed compliance with refund orders under the EPF and MP Act.
What did the court decide?
The appeal was restored to its original number and listed for arguments on 24.09.2025. Recovery proceedings put on hold.
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, DELHI
Misc. application for restoration of dismissed appeal no. D-1/48/2022 M/s Rishabh House Pvt. vs. APFC/RPFC, Delhi (East).
Present: Sh. Pradeep Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. Sh. Vaibhav Prasad, A/R for the Respondent.
Order Dated-11.08.2025
This is an application dated 28.07.2025 filed on behalf of the appellant/ applicant under order IX Rule 9 read with section 151 CPC 1908 for recalling the order dated 16.05.2025 and to restore the appeal to its original number which was dismissed by the said order due to nonprosecution.
Pressing his application ld. counsel for the applicant stated that he could not appear on 16.05.2025 before this tribunal as on 21.04.2025, which was the previous date in this case, all the matter were adjourned enblock for 25.04.2025. However, the counsel for the appellant/applicant noted the date wrongly as 25.06.2025. It is also submitted by the ld. counsel that on 25.04.2025 the tribunal had directed to issue a notice to the appellant but he has not received any such notice. He further stated that on 25.04.2025 he had appeared in court no. 308, Rouse Avenue District Court Complex but could not appear in the present matter. Stating these circumstances, ld. counsel for the applicant prays that he is very keen to prosecute this case and his absence on the fixed date was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to bonafide reasons for which he is deeply regretful and thus, requests to restore his appeal.
Before proceeding further Rule 15 of the Tribunal (procedure) Rules, 1997 is reproduced herein:-
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for restoration of an appeal dismissed for default should be allowed when the appellant was absent due to a genuine clerical error in the adjournment date.
Whether refund orders under industrial labour laws require compliance monitoring and stay of recovery proceedings.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s Rishabh House Pvt.
- respondent
APFC/RPFC, Delhi (East)
- appellant
M/s SMS Prayavaran Ltd.
- respondent
APFC/RPFC, Delhi (North)
- appellant
M/s Charan Agency
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court