Cgit award
Case brief
What is this about?
Tribunal granted stay on execution of an order assessing damages under Section 14B of the EPF & MP Act, subject to a deposit of Rs Two Lakhs via FDR, as unconditional stay would defeat the purpose of hearing the appeal on merits.
What did the court decide?
Stay on execution of impugned order granted subject to deposit of Rs. Two Lakhs via FDR favoring Registrar CGIT for one year.
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-1/45/2019
M/s Air India SATS Airport Services Private Limited. Vs. RPFC Delhi (Central).
Present: Adv. Lakshya Proxy for Sh. Rakesh Lakra, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant.
Sh. B.B. Pradhan, counsel for Sh. D.R Rao, for the Respondent.
Order Dated-19.08.2025
Appellant has filed the amended appeal in terms of the order dated 22.05.2025. Appellant has also filed an application for substitution of the AR. His contention is that Ms. Aastha Maharesh, who was authorized earlier has left the company as such new authorized representative is required to be substituted. Along with the application an affidavit of Mr. Sagar Kabir, Manager legal has also been enclosed along with the resolution passed in the board meeting and a letter of authority.
Counsel for the respondent has no objection if the name of Mr. Sagar Kabir is substituted in place of earlier A/R Ms. Aastha Maharesh. With this, application for substitution is allowed and stands disposed off. Respondent does not want to file reply to the amended appeal. Put up the case on 18.11.2025 for arguments.
Atul Kumar Garg (Presiding Officer)
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a stay grant on execution of an order under Section 14B of the EPF & MP Act is maintainable
Whether the appellant established a prima facie case for unconditional stay pending appeal
Whether the appellant demonstrated necessity of deposit of security amount
Parties & counsel
- other
Atul Kumar Garg
- appellant
M/s Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd.
- respondent
APFC/RPFC, Delhi East
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court