##PAGE1##

CRP No. 4621 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.03.2026

CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

CRP No.4621 of 2023 and

C.M.P. No.27550 of 2023

Kaizen Cold Formed Steel Pvt Ltd No.14-A, Ennore High Court, Tiruvottiyur,

Chennai-600019.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

(C and R)

Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, No.37, Royapettha High Road,

Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order in MP No.1/2022 in EPFA No.164/2019 dated 17.04.2023 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour

Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.G. Muthukumar

For Respondent(s): Mr.K. Venkatesan

ORDER

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal(CGIT)–cum–Labour Court,

dismissed the appeal in E.P.F.A. No.164 of 2019 on 29.06.2022 filed by the petitioner herein and consequent thereupon, the restoration application filed in

__________

Page1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2026 11:20:48 am )

CRP No. 4621 of 2023

M.P. No.1 of 2022 has also been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Challenging the said order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court in M.P. No.1 of 2022 in EPFA No.164 of 2019, this revision petition has

been filed.

2. It is stated that initially proceedings were initiated against the petitioner

under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, culminating in an order dated 22.05.2019 directing payment of dues amounting to Rs.16,14,654/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal in E.P.F.A. No.164 of 2019 under 7-I of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Section 7-O of the Act seeking waiver of pre-deposit. At the time of admission of the said appeal, the Tribunal, in its interim order directed the petitioner to deposit 60% of the assessed dues and posted the matter for compliance. According to the petitioner, due to financial constraints as well as due to covid Pandemic, the said conditional order could not be complied with within the stipulated time. Challenging the said conditional deposit imposed, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition viz., W.P. No.3275 of 2020. This Court, by order dated 07.09.2020, modified the condition and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.6,56,664/- on or before 21.09.2020

and further directed the Tribunal to restore the appeal upon such compliance.

__________

Page2 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2026 11:20:48 am )

CRP No. 4621 of 2023

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the said amount was duly

remitted by way of Demand Draft dated 04.09.2020 in favour of the Registrar of CGIT and the same was accepted. However, thereafter, without issuing any notice or intimating the hearing date, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default by order dated 29.06.2022. According to the petitioner that the final order was not served on the petitioner as contemplated under Rule 20 of the EPF Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 and therefore, the question of limitation would arise only from the date of receipt of such order. In the absence of communication, the dismissal of the restoration petition on the ground of delay is unsustainable. Consequently, the order dated 17.04.2023, which is impugned herein was issued by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court. Aggrieved by the

said order, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without providing

sufficient opportunity, the impugned order dated 17.04.2023 was passed by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court. He further submitted that by total non-application of mind, that too after the deposit of a Demand Draft of Rs.6,56,664/-, in obedience to the directions