Cgit award
Case brief
What is this about?
The tribunal issued show cause notices to officers for violating a stay order by issuing recovery demands. It disposed of an appeal without deposit, restrained coercive action, and consolidated two sequential appeals concerning EPF assessments against delays.
What did the court decide?
Show cause notices issued to officers; one appeal disposed without deposit; other two appeals stayed coercive action.
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-2/35/2024 M/s Bimalraj Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd. vs. APFC/RPFC, Gurugram Central.
Present: Sh. J.R. Sharma & Sh. Bhupesh Sharma, ld. counsel for the Appellant.
Sh. Satpal Singh, Ld. Counsel along with Sh. Monu Singh, APFC & Sh. Kumar Shiladitya, RPFC-II for the Respondent.
Order dated-13.08.2025
The presence of the aforementioned officers of the department are necessitated because in spite of the stay granted by this tribunal they have issued the communication dated 30.07.2025 addressed to Mr. Ashu (Director) M/s Bimalraj Outsourcing Private Limited asking to pay the amount involved in the present appeal.
Sh. Monu Singh, Recovery Officer has stated that he came to the notice of the stay granted by this tribunal only yesterday via a communication received from the penal advocate that the appeal against the orders u/s 14B and 7Q of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as the Act) has already been heard and the tribunal has reserved the matter for orders on the stay application. He submits that had this information been made available earlier, the demand notice dated 30.07.2025 would not have been issued. He submits that there was no malafide intent or wilful disobedience of the order passed by this tribunal.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether officers should face proceedings for disobedience of a stay order after issuing a recovery demand.
Whether deposit of amount is required to entertain an appeal regarding adjustment of trust accumulation.
Whether coercive action can be restrained pending admission of appeals.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s Bimalraj Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd.
- appellant
M/s Sona Koyo Steering System Ltd.
- appellant
M/s Om International School
- respondent
APFC/RPFC, Gurugram
- respondent
APFC/RPFC, Noida
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court