Ram Mohan Reddy, J.

1. Petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 19.5.2004 of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, determining Rs. 91,54,160/- as damages under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the EPF Act) preferred W.P. No. 14338 of 2005 whence a learned Single Judge by order dated 17.8.2007 - Annexure-B while quashing the endorsement dated 31.1.2005 of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, remitted the proceeding to the Central Board of Trustees, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, for re-consideration and until such time directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner not to precipitate any matter pursuant to the order dated 19.5.2004. The Central Board of Trustees rejected the petitioner's request for waiver of damages, in the light of the legal and factual position by letter dated 1.9.2008 - Annexure-C. Petitioner carried orders of the Central Board of Trustees and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in ATA No. 861(6) of 2008 before the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal by order dated 12.1.2009 on the premise that Section 7-I of the Act was inapplicable. That order was called in question in W.P. No. 12078 of 2009, whence a learned Single Judge by order dated 16.6.2010 - Annexure-F allowed the petition, quashed the order of the Appellate Tribunal and remitted the proceeding for fresh consideration.

2. On remand, the Appellate Tribunal by order dated 25.8.2011 - Annexure-H while extracting portions of the observations of the Apex Court and that of the High Court of Orissa in reported opinions held, that in the absence of material on record it cannot be said that the delay caused any prejudice to the appellant i.e. the petitioner and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition.

3. On 10.9.2012, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was recorded in the matter of deposit of Rs. 46,18,000/- as against demand for Rs. 91,54,160/-following which an interim order was granted.

4. Petitioner – an establishment covered under the Act was required to remit provident fund contributions under Section 6 of the Act read with paragraph-29 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (for short EPF Scheme). Respondent alleging that the petitioner - establishment failed to pay the contributions within time for the period March 2001 to February 2003, issued a notice dated 4.3.2004 to show cause as to why damage under Section 14- B of the Act should not be recovered from the petitioner.

5. In response to the said notice, the representative of the petitioner appeared on the date of hearing and stated that the petitioner would remit the interest portion shortly and seek waiver of penal damages. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner by order dated 19.5.2004 - Annexure-A observed that, a statutory obligation is cast on the petitioner to pay the contribution, while the Act, a social welfare legislation intended to provide social security cover to its members, dependent upon prompt compliance by employers, observed that damages is required to be levied to recoup the interest loss as also penalty, a deterrent to the defaulting employer, determined Rs. 91,54,160/- as damages for the period from March 2001 to February 2003, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 14-B of the Act.

6. As noticed supra, that order was questioned in a petition before this Court and thereafter in an appeal followed by an order of the Appellate Tribunal, which was quashed by this Court in another writ proceeding and remitted for consideration afresh following which is the order impugned of the Appellate Tribunal.

7. Sri. S.N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that, imdentical circumstances, in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore vs. Jamiyyatul Falah, Mangalore & another, 2010 (3) LLJ 652 (Kant) this Court following the decision of the Apex Court in Employees' State Insurance Co