G. S. Singhvi, J.

1. These petitions are directed against orders dated 11.6.1998, 12.4.1999 and 16.8.1999 (Annexures P14, P15 and PI7) passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ludhiana (respondent No.2) and Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (respondent No.1), respectively.

2. For the sake of convenience, we may notice the detailed facts from Civil Writ Petition No.4909 of 2000.

3. The petitioner is a small scale industrial unit. It commenced production on 27.4.1981. After four years, it applied for coverage under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the Act ). There was some controversy about the allotment of code to the petitioner and its sister concern, namely M/s Taneja Woollens Mills (petitioner in CWP No.5895 of 2000) (both have a common proprietor namely M/s Swastika Wool Traders Private Limited ). The dispute was finally resolved in 1991. Thereafter respondent No.2 issued notice dated 19.4.1991 (Annexure P5) to the petitioner for determination of its liability under Sec.7a of the Act. The petitioner contested the notice and pleaded that the amount due under the act had been deposited during the relevant years. It also prayed for the grant of opportunity to produce the relevant records. Vide order dated 21.10.1991 (Annexure P8) respondent No.2 determined liability of the petitioner at Rs.98,696.65/- for the period from June 1981 to June 1984 and asked it to deposit the amount within 15 days. The petitioner challenged the order of assessment by filing a petition under Sec.19a of the Act, which was allowed by the competent authority of the Central Government vide order dated 11.5.1993 (Annexure P9) and the case was remanded to respondent No.2 for passing fresh order.

4. In compliance of the direction given by the competent authority, respondent No.2 issued notice dated 29.6.1993 (Annexure P10 ). The petitioner submitted reply dated 20.12.1993 (Annexure P11) and prayed that the proceedings may be dropped because it had already deposited Rs.10,026/- payable as employees share of Provident Fund Contribution, employees share of family Pension Fund Contribution, employers contribution under the Employers Deposited Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 (for short, EDLI Scheme) and administrative charges. It appears that respondent No, 2 accepted the reply of the petitioner and therefore he did not pass fresh order under Sec.7a. However, he issued notice dated 19.3.1996 (Annexure P12) to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed levy of damages under Sec.14b of the Act. The petitioner submitted reply dated 21.5.1996 (Annexure P13) to contest the levy of damages. After hearing representatives of the petitioner and department respondent No.2 passed order dated 11.6.1998 (annexure P14) and imposed damages to the tune of Rs.1,42,291.00 by recording the following observations: "that M/s Swastika Woollen Mills (hereinafter stated to estt.) was brought under the provision of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 (hereinafter stated to as the Act) w. e. f.20.5.1981 including M/s Taneja Woollen Mills. Since estt. failed to report compliance as such dues were determined under sec. 7a of the Act vide order dated 21.10.91. However, consequent upon orders dated 11.5.1998 of the then Legal Adviser (LA) to the Ministry of Labour, the said Order was set aside with the directions to decide the issue of clubbing of both the estts. (as was pleaded by these estt. before the LA) and to pass reasoned order. However, vide an order dated 11.4.91 the then authority had allotted separate code No.1 to both these estts. by allotting code No. PN/13064 to M/s Swastika Woollen Mills, w. e. f.20.5.81 and PN/10813 to M/s Taneja Woollens Mills from the original date of coverage (which in this case was 20.5.81 ). Hence though no reasoned orders were passed but the proceedings initiated after remand back by LA were dropped on the recommendations of the then Enforcement Officer a