1. These writ petitions arise under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous provisions Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Employees Provident Funds Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme), where, in a series of cases on the question of imposition of damages under Section 14B of the Act, after remand by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), the original authorities have passed orders directly contradictory to the specific findings of the Tribunal on questions of law, which amounts to negation of the rule of law by the original adjudicating authorities.

2. Facts are simple. The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, who is engaged in the business of planting tea and rubber, delayed payment of contributions under the Act because of the financial difficulties, which plagued the plantation industry in India, particularly in Kerala, a decade or so ago. Each Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner), having jurisdiction over the particular plantation belonging to the petitioner-company, passed orders under Section 14B of the Act, imposing da