Cgit award
Case brief
What is this about?
Different orders are made in multiple appeals. Some appeals are adjourned for arguments or filing of replies. One appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution due to consistent non-appearance and failure to report compliance, while another appeal is dismissed solely for the appellant's failure to appear after a direction to deposit assessed amount.
What did the court decide?
Most appeals were adjourned; two were dismissed for want of prosecution on grounds of non-appearance and lack of prosecution.
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
D-1/55/2022
M/s Orion Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. APFC, Delhi (Central) .
Present: Sh. Rajiv Arora, Ld. Counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent.
Order dated-08.08.2025
Ld. Counsel for the appellant has stated that he was communicated by Sh. Yash Narayan, proxy for Sh. Rajesh Kumar ld. Counsel for the respondent about busyness of the main counsel in High Court in some urgent matter. Hence, the matter is adjourned to 10.10.2025 for arguments on the misc. application. In the meanwhile, interim order to continue till next date of hearing.
Atul Kumar Garg
Presiding Officer
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM
LABOUR COURT, DELHI
D-1/23/2025 M/s Greenfields Public Schools Vs. APFC/RPFC, Delhi East.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal shall be adjourned or dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance of counsels and failure to file replies.
Whether an appeal shall be dismissed when the appellant fails to appear on consecutive hearing dates after being served notice via email.
Whether an appeal lies under section 7Q of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 and compliance with the order directing deposit of assessed amount is mandatory.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s Orion Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
- respondent
APFC, Delhi (Central)
- appellant
M/s Greenfields Public Schools
- respondent
APFC/RPFC, Delhi East
- appellant
M/s B. Budh Singh Gulab Singh
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court