1. Though in the petition, petitioner had taken more than one point covering the periods of default, the petitioner would stress on the failure of the respondent to consider about the plea of power cut which prevented prompt remittance of the amounts under the provisions of Central Act 19 of 1952. Mr. E. S. Govindan, counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the order is a non-speaking order and none of the two reasons given has been considered, and it has proceeded more in a mechanical manner rather than endeavour to appreciate the hardship faced by the petitioner in prompt remittance, for which it has been reputed since 1952. It is claimed that right from 1952 onwards, till 1975 petitioner has been regularly remitting Provident Fund contributions without default, and it is only since March 1975, it experienced financial difficulties, which cropped up due to crisis in the textile industry with the added factor of power cut. In its representations dated 7-4-1977, it has furnished the periods during which there was power-cut and the steep percentage of power-cut imposed on the industry. In April, 1975, it was cent per cent. Therefore, what he contends is apart from othe