Satya Brata Sanyal, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, dated 22.3.1982 made under Sec.14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), imposing damages of a sum of Rs. 49,909.25, for delay caused in depositing provident fund for the period of June 1973 to February 1976, as well as the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner date d 25.5.1982 refusing to reconsider the earlier order imposing penal damages. The aforesaid orders have been marked respectively as Annexure 3 and 9 of this writ petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that it is an establishment within the meaning of the Act and it has been allotted code No. B.R./1739. Originally the headquarters of the petitioner which is engaged in the transport agency business, was situated at Calcutta. The employees at Calcutta resort to various illegal activities under the. veil of labour dispute and caused serious disturbance in the working of the establishment which is evident from Annexures 1 and 2 of the writ petition and the petitioner having not received adequate protection from law and order authorities at Calcutta, it was constrained to shift the establishment to Sitamarhi in the State of Bihar. Inspite of the adverse circumstances created by the employees, the petitioner did not fail to deposit all the contribution under the Act before any notice issued by the authorities in this regard. There was. however, some delay in doing so which varied from 9 days to four months as would be evident from Annexure 8 of the writ petition during the entire period i. e. June 1973 to February 1976.

3. The points urged by the learned Counsel in support of this petition, assailing the orders aforesaid are as follows:

(1) The imposition of penal damages on 22.3.1982 with respect to default for the years 1973 to 1976. is barred by limitation as it is beyond 3 years as provided by Article 137 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore not recoverable.

(2) Proceedings having been cancelled as would be evident from Annexure 7, the impugned assessment is wholly without jurisdiction.

(3) Section 7A of the Act which provides determination of the amount due "under any provisions of the Act" and provide for the conduct of an enquiry in the said regard, is ultra vires the constitution of India, therefore, the impugned enquiry and consequential assessment of penal damages is illegal and void.

(4) In the scheme of things there could be no rigid formula of assessment of penal damages Mere delay in depositing the provident fund does not ipso facto attract penal consequences. Various circumstances need be objectively considered by a "participatory proceeding" before imposing penal damages.

(5) The impugned order Annexure 3 as well as Annexure 9 suffer from the vice of being non-speaking even though the power exercisable under the provisions of the Act is quasi-judicial.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government urged that there is no substance in any one of the points urged on behalf of the petitioner and the petition is fit to be rejected. I propose to consider his detailed submissions while I will be dealing with each of the points separately.

5. Point No. 1, The learned Counsel of the petitioner submits that the assessment of penal damages (Annexure (3) is without jurisdiction in view of the bar of limitation of 3 years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963. The learned Counsel states that Limitation Act 1963 has brought about a great stride in its applicability to local and special acts. The view expressed by Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Gas Co. V/s. Gopal Bhiva -- and Town Municipal Council, Athani V/s. Presiding Officer -- that neither Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 nor Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963, applies to local and special acts are no more good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Cour