Disposed

Gaurav Bhutani Proprietor of Sumitra International v. Central Board of Trustees & Ors.

Delhi HC17 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/3374/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged CGIT orders dismissing his statutory appeal against EPFO's PF dues assessment for non-compliance with pre-deposit and rejecting restoration. The High Court allowed the petition, restoring the appeal subject to depositing Rs.6 Lakhs within a week and staying recovery proceedings pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal under Section 7-I restored subject to deposit of Rs.6 Lakhs within one week; recovery proceedings kept in abeyance till appeal decided.

Gaurav Bhutani Proprietor of Sumitra… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~80

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3374/2026 and CM APPL.16204/2026 GAURAV BHUTANI PROPRIETOR OF SUMITRA INTERNATIONAL .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Rajiv Shukla, Ms. Shivani Kapoor, Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Manish Bhardwaj, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SC and Mr. Yash Narain, Adv., EPFO.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 17.03.2026

¶11

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing orders dated 25.11.2025 and 20.02.2026 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT)-cum-Labour Court, Delhi in Statutory Appeal No.D-1/44/2023.

¶12

The dispute arises from proceedings initiated by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) authorities for determination of provident fund dues for the period 2014-19, culminating in an order dated 06.06.2022, assessing liability of approximately Rs.15,41,379/- against the petitioner / establishment.

¶13

The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the CGIT under Section 7-I of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) along with an application seeking waiver of the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 7-O

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 12:16:03

¶16

of the Act.

¶17

The Tribunal vide order dated 19.09.2025 directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.6 Lakhs as a condition for entertaining the appeal. 5. The petitioner claimed financial distress and made a partial compliance by furnishing a fixed deposit for Rs.3,02,000/-. Subsequently, the petitioner was able to arrange the balance amount. However, on 25.11.2025, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to non-appearance and alleged non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition. 6. The petitioner submits that absence occurred due to a bonafide belief that the Courts were closed on account of public holiday declared by the Delhi High Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a restoration application along with the full amount of Rs.6 Lakhs towards pre-deposit. 7. The impugned order dated 20.02.2026, however, rejects the restoration application thereby extinguishing the petitioner’s statutory right of appeal without adjudication on merits. 8. Subsequently, the EPFO authorities initiated recovery proceedings and issued a recovery notice dated 05.03.2026 seeking recovery of the assessed dues. Pursuant thereto, an amount of Rs.31,508/- was debited from the bank account of the petitioner.

¶18

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the restoration application and initiation of recovery proceedings, the present petition has been filed. 10. This Court is inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner given the contention that the learned counsel for the petitioner was under the bonafide belief that the Tribunal would remain closed on 25.11.2025 in view of holiday notification issued by the Delhi High Court.

¶19

This Court also takes note of the fact that the pre-deposit amount of

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 12:16:03

¶22

Rs.6 Lakhs was arranged by the petitioner, albeit , belatedly and a bank draft of the said amount was enclosed along with the restoration application, filed by the petitioner.

¶23

Considering the totality of circumstances and to ensure that the petitioner’s statutory appellate remedy is not rendered otiose or redundant, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition.

¶24

Accordingly, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs before the Registrar, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Delhi, within a period of one week, the appeal of the petitioner under Section 7-I of the Act shall stand restored.

¶25

The recovery proceedings started against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till the petitioner’s statutory appeal is decided.

¶26

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶27

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶28

MARCH 17, 2026/ cl

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 12:16:03

Gaurav Bhutani Proprietor of Sumitra International v. Central Board of Trustees & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Bhutani Proprietor of Sumitra International v. Central Board of Trustees & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Aishe Ghosh and Ors. Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University

Mohd Wasim & Ors. Vs Delhi Agriculture Marketing Board through Its Vice Chairman & Ors.

M/S Vinayak Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Government E-Market Place & Ors.

Saroj Devi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Aditya Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors.

Quality Traders Vs Union of India & Ors.

Arun K Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Anuj Malhotra Vs State

Shri Raj Bir Singh Nagar Vs Food Corporation of India

M/S. Triune Projects Private Limited Vs Mr Nikhil Kumar Commissioner of State GST and Vat, Department of Trade and Taxes, Delhi

Bansur Mahavidhyalaya & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Ashok Kumar Tyagi & Ors. Vs Dr. Mohit Tandon & Ors.

Rajender Lohiya @ Rajender Choudhary Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.