J U D G M E N T

This writ petition has been filed by the provident fund organization challenging an order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in ATA No.181 (7) 2011 reducing the damages payable by the 1^st respondent to 50% of the damages levied by the provident fund authorities.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1951 Act') are leviable even if the delay of remittance of provident fund contribution is not intentional. The writ petition filed by the 1^st respondent as W.P (C) 18233/2014 challenging the very same order has been dismissed by separate judgment today, holding that the absence of mens rea may not be a ground to absolve the 1^st respondent from the payment of damages under Section 14 B of the 1952 Act. While disposing of the writ petition filed by the 1^st respondent I have observed that the exercise of discretion by the Appellate Authority does not appear to be perverse or irr