UNION OF INDIA & ANR vs M/S SHRIRAM COCONUT PRODUCTS (P) LIMITED & ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR LPA 424/2014 Page 1 of 15 Signing Date:14.03.2026 20:48 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 Tribunal1, 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, 19522. 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