Cgit award
Case brief
What is this about?
The tribunal admitted a fresh appeal against a demand notice for arithmetically assessed arrears despite cognizance that appeals against recovery notices are not maintainable, to address alleged harassment and safeguard interests. It restrained the respondent from coercive action and directed record production.
What did the court decide?
Appellant restrained from taking coercive action; Respondent directed to produce recovery file and reports on dues/deposit statements by 25.09.2025.
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-1/38/2025
M/s Punj Lloyd vs. RPFC, Delhi (South)
Present:
Sh. S.K. Khanna, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Prateek Tyagi, AR for the Respondent.
Order dated- 17.09.2025
The office has reported that the appeal has been filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under rule 07 (2) of Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997.
The AR for the respondent, Sh. Prateek Tyagi, has submitted that the present case has been assigned to Adv. Santwana Aggarwal. However, she has not appeared yet. Upon being contacted, she stated that she would appear within 30 minutes, but even after 45 minutes she has not turned up.
In these circumstances, after hearing the submissions from the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, the matter is adjourned to 14.10.2025 for arguments on the stay application. Till then, the respondent is restrained from taking any coercive action.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal under Section 7(1) of the EPF & MP Act is maintainable against a recovery/demand notice and should be admitted to safeguard the appellant from harassment.
Whether the respondent is restrained from taking coercive action pending the production of records regarding dues and deposits.
Whether the respondent is directed to produce the recovery file and a report on the dues and deposit statement.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s R. N. Industries
- respondent
APFC/RPFC, Delhi (East)
Coram
Atul Kumar Garg
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court