M.R. Shah, J.

1. ADMIT. Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent No. 2 - Company. The respondent No. 1 stands deleted.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, present Appeal is taken up for final hearing today.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned CAV Order dated 2/8/2016 passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 570 of 2016, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition preferred by the appellants herein and has confirmed the order passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi passed in ATA No. 345(5) of 2013, by which the learned Appellate Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed under section 14(B) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the EPF Act" for short), Provident Fund Department has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

4. That on failure of the respondent management - employer to deposit the amount of provident fund for the period from March, 2008 to February, 2012 to the extent of approximately Rs. 43,00,000/-, proceedings under section 14(B) of the EPF Act came to be initiated against the respondent. A show cause notice was issued to the employer on 11/12/2012 to show cause as to why damages under section 14(B) of the EPF Act should not be imposed and recovered for the default committed in depositing the amount of provident fund for the period from March, 2008 to February, 2012. The details of the defaults committed were furnished to the employer along with the notice.

4.1. In response to the show cause notice, the employer appeared before the appropriate authority and submitted that because of financial problem, the amount of provident fund could not be deposited. However, having found that the employer was habitual defaulter in respect of payment under the EPF Act, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner imposed/levied damages totalling Rs. 43,57,177/- under section 14(B) of the EPF Act.

4.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, levying damages totalling Rs. 43,57,177/- under section 14(B) of the EPF Act, the employer preferred Appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal under section 7(I) of the EPF Act and the employer deposited Rs. 10,90,000/-.

4.3. That the learned Appellate Tribunal reduced the damages under section 14(B) of the EPF Act to Rs. 10,90,000/- from Rs. 43,57,177/- as imposed by the learned Provident Fund Commissioner, solely on the ground that since the employer has remitted interest under section 7(Q) under the combined notice amounting to Rs. 32,86,132/- before levy by the Authorized Officer, the levy of quantum of damages should be restricted to equivalent to the amount of deposit remitted by the employer at the time of preferring appeal under section 7(I).

4.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal restricting damages to Rs. 10,90,000/- as against damages of Rs. 43,57,177/- imposed by the learned Provident Fund Commissioner, the Department preferred Special Civil Application No. 570 of 2016 before the learned Single Judge. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition which has given rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal.

5. Mr. Meena, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants - Department and Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent - employer - management.

6. Mr. Meena, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant Department has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in dismissing the petition and confirming the order passed by the learned