These petitions have been taken up together for disposal as common question of law is involved. In these petitions, petitioners have sought to declare Section 7-Q of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 20(1) of the Constitution and to strike down the provisions of Section 7-Q of the Act in the matter of levying rate of interest for the delay in payment of contribution being violative of principles of natural justice, discriminate arbitrary and unreasonable and to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 7-Q of the Act and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the hardship and to cancel the interest imposed as per Section 7-Q of the Act and for such other orders.

2. Facts will be referred to in respect of W.P. No. 34582 of 2002. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having commenced its activities in the field of software development in August 1999. Petitioner is said to have voluntarily approached for the coverage of the establishment as per the provisions of the Act and is said to have made arrangements to pay contribution on 18-3-2000. According to the petitioner, it being a new establishment, has taken sufficient time to settle down in its business and the petitioner was able to remit the contribution only on 4-8-2001 and 24-4-2001 in respect of the contribution payable for the period from 20th March, 2000 to 20th March, 2001 due to shortage of funds. However, thereafter petitioner is said to have paid the contribution regularly. Meanwhile, the respondent-authority is said to have initiated proceedings under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act ('Act' for short) having issued a show-cause notice on 3-5-2002 proposing to levy damages for the delay in payment of contribution for the period from 1999-2000 to 2000-2002 to which, the petitioner furnished an explanation vide letter dated 3-6-2002 and also requested the respondent not to levy any damages, but the impugned order at Annexure-B, dated 17-6-2002 came to be passed having imposed damages of Rs. 9,16,503 and levied interest in sum of Rs. 3,11,811/- at the rate of 12% p.a. for the delayed remittance of contribution as per Annexure-D. Hence, this petition.

3. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli representing the Provident Fund Commissioner.

4. It is the submission of the petitioners Counsel that when specific provision under the Act is provided under Section 14-B to award damages for delayed payment, which is also inclusive of interest, the provision under Section 7-Q of the Act to pay interest on the amount during the period of non-remittance is violative of principles of natural justice and it is excessive and arbitrary thereby imposing double burden on the petitioners and apart from paying damages double the amount of contribution, they have to pay interest thereby it amounts to payment of 112% damages including interest over and above the amount to be contributed. Further, according to him, this establishment is till in the stage of development/and it had taken considerable time to settle down in business as such, without taking into consideration the hardship, heavy damages were imposed and also petitioner was also asked at pay interest at the rate of 12%.

5. Simultaneously it is also submitted, when there is a provision under _ Section 14-B of the Act to impose damages for delayed remittance/payment of the contribution by the management towards provident fund, to pay interest once again as per Section 7-Q of the Act would be arbitrary and violative of the constitutional mandate.

6. Per contra, Counsel for the respondent contended that this provision would be invoked only in case of any failure of contribution on time and if there is any irregularity, necessarily it gives scope for assa