JUDGMENT Yashoda Nandan, J. - This special appeal by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, U. P. Kanpur, is directed against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge allowing a writ petition at the instance of M/s. Allahabad Canning Company, Bamrauli, Allahabad, which was directed against an order under S. 14-B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Family Pensions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directing the recovery from the respondent certain amount of damages and administrative charges. 2. The Respondent-Company is covered by the provisions of the Act and the Employees' Provident Pensions Scheme is applicable to it. Admittedly it made defaults in making deposits it was required to make under the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder for periods commencing June, 1964 and ending March, 1970. As a consequence by a notice dated 20th August 1973, under the signature of the Accounts Officer of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, the respondent was intimated that since it had delayed remittance of certain dues under the Act for period during the years 1964 to 1970, an amount of Rs. 7830.65 p. was recoverable from it as damages for the delayed payments and a further amount of Rs. 302.20 p. on account of administrative charges. The annexures to the notice disclosed in detail the dates of deposits made by the respondent. The notice required the respondent to show cause as to why the amounts disclosed in the notice be not recovered from it and gave it an opportunity of raising any objection to the demand within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the notice. This notice was replied to by the respondent by means of a letter dated 28th Sept. 1973, addressed to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. Lucknow. It was stated in the reply by the respondent that it had already paid the contributions due to the Provident Funds Scheme and the administrative charges accrued on the same up-to-date. It was, however, contended that due to "some unavoidable circumstances", and owing to "some financial difficulties" the payments were delayed. It was further stated that the delays had not been caused due to deliberate and wilful neglect of the employers. It was, however, contended that due to "some unavoidable circumstances", and owing to "some financial difficulties" the payments were delayed. It was further stated that the delays had not been caused due to deliberate and wilful neglect of the employers. The contention was raised that since the employees had already paid the requisite contributions along with ' administrative charges for the period commencing June 1964 and ending March 1970 and the amounts had also been accepted and credited to the Funds Accounts there remained no default and as such legally no damages could be levied or recovered from the employers. It was further stated that damages aforesaid having been levied at a very late and belated stage by the authority concerned, according to principles of natural and social justice such damages could not be recovered. It appears that on behalf of the Provident Fund Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, some reply dated 11th Sept. 1973, was again sent to the respondent which is not to be found on the record. However. on the 28th Sept. 1973, another letter was addressed by the Manager of the respondent concern in response to the notice dated 20th Aug. 1973, to the effect that it had already made a representation to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh who was the appropriate authority praying for redress of its grievances. It was prayed that further proceedings be stayed till the Governor had given his decision. By a letter dated 18th Feb. 1974, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, apparently in response to the letter dated 28th Sept. 1973, of the Manager of the respondent informed it that the Act had been amended and the State Government was no longer the competent authority under S. 14-B of the Act. By means of this letter the respondent was once again given an opportunity to represent its case in writing or in person for consideration by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner within 30 days of receipt failing which it was stated further necessary action would follow. The respondent, however, persisted in treating the State of Uttar Pradesh as the appropriate authority under S. 14-B of the Act and again on 12th April, 1974, addressed a representation to the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Secretary, Labour Department, U. P. Contention similar to those raised earlier in the letter dated 28th Sept. 1973, were raised. The respondent, however, persisted in treating the State of Uttar Pradesh as the appropriate authority under S. 14-B of the Act and again on 12th April, 1974, addressed a representation to the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Secretary, Labour Department, U. P. Contention similar to those raised earlier in the letter dated 28th Sept. 1973, were raised. Failing to get relief from the State Government the respondent ultimately on 14th Dec. 1974, addressed a letter to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, U. P., praying that the damages proposed to be levied against the respondent be waived. It was prayed that the respondent may be given an opportunity of being heard and explaining the correct facts and legal position. The facts and legal position set out in this communication were again identical with those contained in the representation dated 28th Sept. 1973. Again, the excuse was taken that the required deposits had not been made on account of 'some unavoidable circumstances' and owing to 'some financial difficulties' and that delay had not been caused due to deliberate and wilful neglect of the employers. Ultimately, on the 17th Jan. 1975, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, communicated to the respondent that the representation made by it had been duly considered but it was regretted that the pleas advanced for delays in the remittances under the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder could not be accepted. The notice went on to state that in exercise of powers conferred on the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh. under S. 14-B of the Act, it is directed that a sum of Rs. 7830.65 P in Employees' Provident Fund Account No. 1 and Rs. 302.20 only in Employees' Provident Fund Account No. II, be levied as damages on the respondent for the belated remittance of the dues under the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder for the periods commencing June 1964 and ending March 1970. The respondent was directed to remit the said amounts to the respective Employees Provident Fund Account maintained at the State Bank of India within 30 days from the date of issue of the letter failing which action was threatened to be taken under S. 8 of the Act to recover the amounts in the same manner as arrears of land revenue without further notice. 3. 3. Aggrieved by the action of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, U.P. the respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in this Court. The learned single Judge of this Court, who heard the writ petition allowed it and quashed the notice dated 17th Jan. 1975. 4. The learned Judge quashed the proceedings against the petitioner and the notice dated 17th Jan. 1975, on two grounds only. It was firstly held by the learned Judge that since the dues. the payment of which were alleged to have been delayed, were for the period commencing from June 1964 and ending March 1970. action against the petitioner under S. 14-B of the Act as late as in Jan. 1975 was illegal. For the view taken by him the learned single Judge relied upon a decision of the Punjab High Court in M/s. Amin Chand & Sons v. State of Punjab (AIR 1965 Punj 441). It was further held that action under S. 14-B was in the nature of a quasi-judicial proceeding and since the notice impugned was not a speaking order it was liable to be quashed. 5. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur has appealed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent, and in our view the reasons given by the learned single judge for quashing the notice dated 17th Jan. 1975 are unsustainable and this special appeal has consequently to be allowed. 7. As far as the first. point decided by the learned single Judge is concerned, we find ourselves in disagreement with the views expressed in M/s. Amin Chand and Sons v. State of Punjab (AIR 1965 Funj 441) (supra). S. 14-B of the Act does not provide any limitation during which action against an erring employer can: be taken for delayed deposits under the Act. In the absence of any bar of limitation, in our opinion there is no principle of law which debarred the Provident Fund Commissioner from exercising the statutory powers available to him under S. 14-B of the Act. In this connection, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Bombay Gas Co. In this connection, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva ( AIR 1964 SC 752 ) wherein it was observed that: "It seems to us that there the legislature has made no provision for limitation, it would not be open to the Courts to introduce any such limitation on the grounds of fairness or justice. The words of S. 33-C (2) are plain and unambiguous and it would be the duty of the Labour Court to give effect to the said provisions without any considerations of limitation. Mr. Kolah no doubt emphasised the fact that such belated claims made on a large scale may cause considerable inconvenience to the employer, that is a consideration which the Legislature may take into account and if the Legislature feels that fair play and justice require that some limitation should be prescribed it may proceed to do so. In the absence of any provision, however, the Labour Court cannot import any such consideration in dealing with the applications made under S. 33-C (2)." In this case, the Supreme Court was called upon to decide as to whether an order in proceedings under S. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act could be made when the application had been presented eight years after the amount fell due. The view taken by the Supreme Court in the above-mentioned decision was further followed by it in Chief Mining Engineer M/s. East India Coal Co. Ltd. v. Rameshwar ( AIR 1968 SC 218 ) and The Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Hubli ( AIR 1969 SC 1335 ) . 8. The second reason which prevailed with the learned Judge was as already stated, that the notice dated 17th Jan. 1975 did not give reasons for rejecting the representation made by the respondent in response to the show cause notice issued to him. We are not impressed with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent in support of the view taken by the learned single Judge. In its reply the respondent did not challenge the correctness of the amount demanded by means of the show-cause notice dated 20th Aug. 1973 addressed to the Prabhandhak of the respondent. We are not impressed with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent in support of the view taken by the learned single Judge. In its reply the respondent did not challenge the correctness of the amount demanded by means of the show-cause notice dated 20th Aug. 1973 addressed to the Prabhandhak of the respondent. It appears that the notice was accompanied by some annexures which contained details and the manner in which the amounts claimed as recoverable were worked out and also showed the dates when the delayed deposits had, in fact, been made by the respondent. The annexures have not been filed along with copy of the notice and are not available for our perusal. However, in view of the fact that the respondent did not raise any dispute with regard to the quantum of the amount considered recoverable it must be assumed that he was satisfied that the amounts were not unreasonably claimed. The only reply given by the respondent to the show cause issued to it as that on account of financial stringency and some other unavoidable reasons it had been compelled to make the payments after delay. The details of the so-called unavoidable circumstances and the nature of the financial difficulties were not disclosed at all in the representation given by the respondent to the show cause notice. Under the circumstances, the finding given by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that the plea advanced by the respondent was untenable was, to our mind, a sufficient compliance with the requirements of a reasoned order. To the vague nature of objections raised by the respondent, we find it difficult to understand as to what other reasons could conceivably have been given. The reasons expected to be recorded in a speaking order must necessarily depend on the nature of contentions raised in reply to the show cause notice. 9. For the reasons given, we allow this appeal set aside the order and the judgment. of the learned single judge and dismiss the writ petition with costs to the appellant. The interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.