RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the order dated 16th January, 2006 of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (respondent), made in exercise of powers under Section 14 B of the Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and imposing total penalty by way of damages of `1,69,913/- on the petitioner. Notice of the petition was issued and the operation of the order stayed. The said interim order has continued to remain in force. The pleadings have been completed. The counsels have been heard.

2. Section 14 B empowers the Provident Fund Commissioner, when an employer makes default in the payment of any contribution to the Fund, to recover from such employer by way of penalty, such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears, as may be specified in the Scheme.

3. The respondent, being of the view that the petitioner had failed to remit the provident fund and allied dues for the period from the date of coverage to March, 2003 within the stipulated time, issued a notice dated 24th September, 2003 to the petitioner to show cause as to why damages as envisaged under Section 14 B be not recovered by way of penalty from the petitioner. The impugned order records that the case was adjourned on as many as 31 occasions and when the authorized representative of the petitioner appeared. The order further records that notwithstanding so many opportunities, the petitioner failed to render any cogent explanation or reason for delay in payment of the statutory dues. The respondent, though recording that Section 14 B seeks to address such employers who make default in payment of statutory contributions for their own profit, held that the present case warranted imposition of damages owing to the frequency of defaults. Accordingly penalty by way of damages in the sum of `1,69,913/- as aforesaid was levied.

4. It is the case of the petitioner before this Court that the petitioner is a government run society under the control of the Commissioner of Industries who is also the ex-officio President of the petitioner Society; that the principal officer of the petitioner Society is the Joint Commissioner of Industries of Govt. of NCT of Delhi; that the other members of the Governing Council of the petitioner Society are also the various officials of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Managing Director of DSIDC, Managing Director of Delhi Financial Corporation, Director of Delhi Institute of Technology and Joint Director of Industries, Delhi. The petitioner further pleads that it had itself in August, 1993 written to the respondent to register itself under the provisions of the Act and was accorded registration with effect from the month of January, 1994; that the petitioner works under the procedure laid down by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and any transfer of funds from the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the petitioner takes place through a sanction and in which often considerable delays occur and which has resulted in some minor procedural unintentional delays in depositing the contribution; that the said explanations were rendered by the petitioner before the respondent also but have not been considered by the respondent. The petitioner states that the major delay occurred only consequent to the Provident Funds (Amendment) Act, 1998 and pursuant whereto the amount required to be deposited being heavy, various sanctions had to be obtained which resulted in delay. It is also pleaded that since the officers of the petitioner Society are appointed on deputation, there is frequently a void when the officer is reverted to the parent department/organization and in the appointment of a new officer and which has also resulted in delay in deposit of contributions from time to time.

5. The respondent in its counter affidavit has supported the order impugned in this petition by contending that the same is reasoned and detailed. It is further pleaded that the petitioner was admittedly in default and there is nothing wrong in damages being