KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

This order shall dispose of the Writ petitions bearing nos. 3850/1992 and 3887/1993. WPC No. 3850/1992 is taken as the lead case. By way of these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 28/5/1992 in WPC no. 3850/1992 and order dated 17/5/1993 in WPC No. 3887/1993 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The brief conspectus of the facts relevant for deciding the present petitions is as under:

The petitioner were required to pay P.F. and P.P.F. Contributions, Insurance Fund Contributions and Administrative charges payable under Sections 6, 6A and 6C of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and under the provisions of EPF Scheme, 1952 and EDLI Scheme, 1976. Since the employers failed to pay the said contributions and administrative charges due as required by law for the period from 5/1978 to 11/1989 in WPC no. 3850/1992 and for the period 12/1989 to 4/1992 in WPC No. 3887/1993. Pursuant to the default in payment of the said dues the proceedings under Section 14-B of the Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 were initiated. On failure of the petitioners to show cause why damages for default in payment of dues within time as mentioned under para 38 of the Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, should not be recovered from them, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi, ordered recovery of the damages from the petitioners. Assailing the said order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi the present petitions have been preferred by the petitioners.

The counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajender Dhawan, contended that the important question which arises for consideration before this Court is the interpretation of the expression “within 15 days of the close of every month” used in para 38 of the Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The counsel contended that the dispute is whether the said expression refers to 15 days of the close of the wage month or within 15 days of the close of the British calendar month. The counsel submitted that as per Section 4 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, every employer can fix a wage period and no such wage period shall exceed one month. The counsel also submitted that similar is the position under the Delhi Shops & Establishments Act. The counsel maintained that accordingly, the petitioner company adopted the wage month commencing from the 16th day of each English calendar month ending on the 15th day of the following month. The counsel urged that in accordance with the Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Scheme framed thereunder, the petitioner company was required to make deductions of the employee’s contributions at the time of disbursement of wages to the employees and deposit the same within 15 days of the close of the said wage period/wage month.

The counsel submitted that the petitioner company had been making deductions of employee’s contributions so as to deposit the same with the Provident Fund authorities within the prescribed period in terms of para 38 of the Act. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner company was also maintaining the records as prescribed by the authorities under the Act, which record for the period 1978-1989 had been regularly inspected by the Officers of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner’s Office and at no point it was ever pointed out that by making deposits within 15 days of the close of the wage month, petitioners were committing default in making the deposits. The counsel urged that the petitioner was surprised to receive a notice dated 31/5/1990 from the respondent no. 1 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, wherein it was stated that the petitioner company defaulted in payment of th