In an appeal filed before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, wherein the appellant had pressed an application for grant of stay as well as an application under Section 7-O of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act), seeking waiver of the statutory deposit, a Bench comprised by the Presiding Officer Atul Kumar Garg waived the requirement of statutory deposit and granted a stay on the execution of the impugned order.
M/s Sojitz Corporation was a foreign entity incorporated in Japan, having its head office in Tokyo. Sojitz Corporation, Japan entered into a consortium with M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T) under the name and style of “Sojitz-L&T Consortium” for the execution of infrastructure works related to the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor Project. Sojitz Corporation was entrusted with more than 50% of the total scope of work under the contract, and after the execution of the contract, the core project execution work was lawfully subcontracted to L&T. Sojitz Corporation established a project office in India in connection with the said project, which had its principal office at Faridabad.
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (APFC) had determined provident fund dues primarily on the ground that Sojitz Corporation had engaged three international workers who had either produced certificates of coverage only for a limited period or had failed to produce the same for the relevant period. Liability was also determined for certain Indian employees whose wages exceeded the statutory wage ceiling on the ground that Form-11 and member-wise records were not produced.
CGIT stated that ordinarily, Section 7-O mandates a pre-deposit of 75% of the amount determined under Section 7-A before an appeal can be entertained. However, it was noted that no finding had been recorded by the APFC as to whether the employees whose wages exceeded the statutory wage ceiling had already been enrolled as members of the Provident Fund Scheme prior to crossing the wage ceiling. CGIT held that in the absence of such a finding, the APFC could not have drawn an adverse inference merely on account of non-production of Form-11 or complete member-wise records.
It was stated that the APFC had not separately assessed or quantified the liability, if any, in respect of international workers and that these issues had to be considered in detail at the stage of final hearing.
Hence, CGIT opined that Sojitz Corporation had made out a fit case for grant of waiver under Section 7-O. Thus, the application for waiver of statutory pre-deposit was allowed and the execution of the impugned order was stayed till finalization of appeal.
The matter has now been listed on 19-08-2026.
