The petitioner-Employees Provident Fund Organization constituted under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘Act’), aggrieved by the order dated 30-3-2009 in A.T.A. No. 663 (6) 2003 of the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Annexure-B, has preferred this petition.

2. The 1st respondent an establishment falling within the definition of the said term under the ‘Act’, was required to deposit the Provident Fund contributions under Section 6 of the Act read with Paragraph 38 of Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (for short, ‘EPF Scheme 1952’); Pension Fund contributions under Section 6-A of the Act read with Paragraph 3 of the EPF Scheme, 1952; Administrative charge under Paragraph 38 of EPF Scheme 1952; Inspection charges under Section 17(3) of the Act read with Paragraphs 27 and 27-A of the EPF Scheme, 1952; Employees Deposit linked Insurance Fund contribution and administrative charges under Section 6-C of the Act and inspection charges under Section 17(3-A) of the Act.

3. The Petitioner, alleging that the respondent-Establishment failed to pay in time:

(i) The Provident Fund Contributions;

(ii) The Administrative/Inspection Charges;

(iii) The Pension Fund Contributions;

(iv) The Deposit Linked Insurance Fund contributions;

(v) The EDLI administrative inspection charges as required by law for the months 3/1998 to 2/2001, issued notice dated 10-7-2002 to show cause as to why damages under Section 14-B of the Act should not be recovered from the Respondent after extending an opportunity of personal hearing.

4. In response to the notice, the respondent having submitted a reply dated 17-8-2002, was extended an opportunity of personal hearing on 27-8-2002 and 3-9-2002, whence it was conceded that there was delay in payment of contributions on dates indicated in the statement. The delay was sought to be explained by the respondent that it was a charitable Institution, dependant on contributions in the form of donations; having opened a school in a remote locality, hoping to be admitted to grant-in-aid by the State Government, which was not extended; were the cause for the delay in payment of the contribution. In addition it was asserted that the respondent was not aware that it was liable to pay contributions under the Act and in fact, had raised loans to pay the contributions. In the aforesaid premise, the respondent pleaded not to levy damages.

5. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore of the petitioner-Organization, by order dated 24-9-2002, Annexure-A observed that a statutory obligation is cast on the Respondent, to pay the contribution and as the Act was a social welfare legislation, the successful welfare of the Social Security Scheme being dependant upon prompt compliance by employers declined to accept the respondent’s explanation for the delay, and accordingly levied damages of Rs. 80,520/-and directed the Respondent to deposit the same under the caption ‘Penal Damages’, within a time frame, failing which action would be initiated to recover the same with interest at 12% per annum as provided for by Section 7-Q of the Act and in the manner specified in Sections 8-B to 8-G of the Act.

6. The Respondent, aggrieved by the order, preferred an appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Appellant Tribunal, New Delhi, in A.T.A. No.663(6) of 2003, whence the Tribunal having observed the law laid down by the Apex Court in M/s. Hindustan Steel Limited v. State of Orissa1, coupled with the decision of the Apex Court in Organo Chemical Industries and Another v. Union of India and Others2, held that the petitioner-Organization had failed to look into the question as to whether there was any conscious failure on the part of the employer in non-payment of the contributions under the Act, more appropriately the plea that the respondent establishment was in dire financial straits and accordingly, by order dated 30-3-2009, restricted the damages up to