$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 424/2014 UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Appellants Through: Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, Ms. Arani Mukherjee, Mr.Vinay Singh Bist and Mr. Yashu Rustagi, Advocates versus M/S SHRIRAM COCONUT PRODUCTS (P) LIMITED & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Ms. Aditi Pundhir and Mr. Rishabh Wahi, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 12.03.2026 OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

CM APPL. 82384/2025 (Restoration)

1. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the present appeal was dismissed in default for non-prosecution on 26.11.2025.

2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and in the interests of justice, we are inclined to allow the present application.

3. Accordingly, order dated 26.11.2025 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original position.

LPA 424/2014

4. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 03.09.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the order dated 27.06.2005 passed by Respondent No. 2, i.e., Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, 1“EPFAT”, hereinafter, was set aside.

5. The issue in controversy is short. We are only required to consider whether the activities of the respondent would fall within Schedule I to the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Signature Not Veri2f

6. The present dispute emanates from a notice/letter dated 02.03.1998 issued by Appellant No. 1 to include Respondent No. 1 within the ambit of the EPF Act. This was contested by Respondent No. 1 on the ground that it was engaged in the activity of desiccating coconuts which did not fall under Schedule I of the Act. Consequently, an enquiry under Section 7A of the Act was initiated wherein it was held on 03.07.1998 that coconut was indeed a fruit and accordingly, Respondent No. 1 fell under Schedule I of the Act.

7. Being adversely affected, Respondent No. 1 applied for the review of the aforesaid order under Section 7B of the Act, which was also dismissed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in his order dated 22.01.2001. It was observed as under:

“5. There is no dispute that as per the new Webster dictionary the coconut is edible fruit. The process involved is dessication, Dessicate as per Webster dictionary means to dry up, to dry to remove moisture from the dehydrate etc.

I have also gone through the book of accounts of the establishment wherein found that the final product is sold mostly to Biscuit companies and confectionaries. The product is packed in polywoven bags packed in card “ ie E d PF Act”/ “Act”, hereinafter board bags.

The removal of moisture from the coconut is to preserve the product for longer period. As such the department has covered M/s. Sri Ram Coconut Products Ltd. Batlagundu rightly under the Schedule head fruit & vegetable preservation industry. Now, therefore I, Suthanthiraraman, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Madurai in exercise of the power conferred on under Section 7B order that the provisions of the Act are applicable w.e.f. 22,09.97 and accordingly M/s. Sri Ram Coconut Products Ltd. is required to report compliance w.e.f. 22.09.97.”

8. Resultingly, Respondent No. 1 preferred a statutory appeal before EPFAT, which came to be dismissed on 27.07.2005 holding that coconut is deemed as a fruit for the purposes of the EPF Act.

9. Aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 challenged this order before a learned Single Judge of this Court and on 03.09.2013, vide the impugned judgment, the order ofEPFATwas set aside on the ground that coconut is not to be construed as a fruit for the purposes of EPF Act.

10. By way of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Shri Bharuch Coconut Trading Co. and Ors. v. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad, Signature Not Veri3f, specifically to the following passage therein:

“5. In P.A. Thillai Chidambara Nadar v. Addl. Appellate A