Cgit award
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal granted an adjournment in one appeal. In another, it directed office rectification, stayed impugned orders subject to deposit, and disposed of interim applications. Other appeals were listed for rehearing, further arguments, or adjournment due to absence or counsel request.
What did the court decide?
Adjournment granted; office rectification directed; stay of orders granted subject to deposit; listings fixed for future dates.
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 GOVERNMENTINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, No. 2 DELHI;
Appeal No. D-2/01/2025
M/s. Chennai MSW Pvt. Ltd.
Appellant
Through:- Sh. Ravi Ranjan Mishra & Sh. Harshit Singh, ld. counsel for the
appellant
Vs.
APFC/RPFC, Noida Respondent
Through:- Sh. Shailendra Arya, A/R for the respondent
Order Dated:-05.08.2025
Ld. counsel for the respondent, Ms. Santwana Agarwal has requested for an adjournment through email. In the interest of justice, prayer to grant adjournment is allowed. List the matter on 03.09.2025 for arguments on the misc. application filed u/s 7 O of the EPF & MP Act, 1952. In the meanwhile, interim orders to continue till next date of hearing.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an adjournment should be granted in the interest of justice.
Whether an appeal is in time despite office record discrepancies and if the impugned assessment orders should be stayed.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s. Chennai MSW Pvt. Ltd.
- respondent
APFC/RPFC, Noida
- appellant
M/s. Balaji Manpower Recruitment Pvt. Ltd.
- respondent
APFC/RPFC, Faridabad
- appellant
M/s. SCT (P) Ltd.
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court