This appeal has been filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Gauhati and its Regional Director against the order of the learned Employees' Insurance Court, Gauhati dated 5.1.83 in Case No. ESI No. 3 of 1980. 2. Briefly stated, there were delays ranging from 5 to 10 days in making payments of contributions by the respondents under sections 39 and 40 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, for short, 'the Act'. By the order dated 2.11.78 the Regional Director asked the respondents to pay damages of Rs. 43,000/- and odd and the said order has been marked as Exhibit 1. Against the aid order the respondents herein approached the learned Judge of the Employees' Insurance Court and by the impugned judgment, the order of the Regional Director dated 2.11.78 was set aside. Hence, this appeal. 3. Section 82 of the Act contains the provisions for an appeal before this Court and sub-section (2) of the said section, inter alia, provides that an appeal shall He to this Court if it involves a substantial question of law. Mr. Goswami has drawn my attention to the impugned judgment and has urged that the substantial question of law is whether under the provisions of the Act more-particularly section 85-B, the Regional Director of the Employees State Insurance Corporation is liable to hear the employer even after the order was passed, after giving opportunity to the employer. I quote below the said section 85-B. ''85-B.Power to recover damages. (1) Whether an employer fails to pay the amount due in respect of any contribution or any other amount payable under this Act, the Corporation may recover from the employer such damages not exceeding the amount of arrears as it may think fit to impose ; Provided that before recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) Any damages recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue". 4. Mr. Bhattacharyya has urged that this section can be invoked only after the process of recovery of the contribution is completed. It may be mentioned here that in case of default of contribution by the employer, the amount can be realised as an arrear of land revenue as provided under section 45-B of the Act. On the other hand Mr. Mr. Bhattacharyya has urged that this section can be invoked only after the process of recovery of the contribution is completed. It may be mentioned here that in case of default of contribution by the employer, the amount can be realised as an arrear of land revenue as provided under section 45-B of the Act. On the other hand Mr. Goswami has urged that even for delay of one day, the Corporation will be within its power to impose damages under the aforesaid section 85-B. 5. The opening words of the said section 85-B are significant, In my opinion there must be failure on the part of the employer to pay the contribution before initiation of proceeding under section 85-B. The competent authority must be satisfied about such failure and record its satisfaction. It may be mentioned that under the said section, it is not mandatory for the Corporation to realise dama­ges. I would also like to refer to Rule 31A of the Employees' State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 under which on the failure of payment of contribution the authority shall have to realise interest on the amount at the rate specified in the said rule for each day of default or delay in payment. In addition to such interest the authority can also realise damage under section 85B. In this section the word 'may' has been used. Thus reading section 85B and Rule 31A I am of the opinion that in each and every case of default section 8 5B need not be invoked. Contention of Mr. Bhattacharyya is also not acceptable as it would amount to give wide interpret­ation to this section 85B which cannot be done in respect of welfare legislation of the present nature. To strike a balance, I can say that the Corporation, if it so desires, may invoke section 85B only after process of recovery under section 45B is initiated and in other words if it is satisfied that there was a failure on the part of the employer. 6. Coming to the contention of Mr. Goswami, I may refer to the proviso to sub-clause (1) of section 81B and the words 'before recovering such damages' indicate that even after issuance of notice assessing damages under section 85B, the authority does not become functus officio. If the employer approaches, the authority can hear the matter again and pass necessary orders. Coming to the contention of Mr. Goswami, I may refer to the proviso to sub-clause (1) of section 81B and the words 'before recovering such damages' indicate that even after issuance of notice assessing damages under section 85B, the authority does not become functus officio. If the employer approaches, the authority can hear the matter again and pass necessary orders. However, once the process of recovery of damages starts, dispute, if any has to be decided by the Employees' Insurance Court under section 75 of the Act. 7. Situated thus, reading section 85B of the Act with Rule 31A of the Rules, I am of the opinion that if there is a failure on the part of an employer to pay the contribution under the Act within the time fixed the authority shall have to realise interest @ fixed under Rule 31A. I am further of the opinion that it is within the discretion of the authority to decide whether section 85B may be invoked in case of such failure and if it is decided to do so the authority must be satisfied that there was failure to pay the contribution on the part of the employer and must also record his satisfaction. It is not mandatory that in each and every case of failure to pay, section 85 B of the Act should be invoked as for such failure the employer is bound to pay the interest. 8. Regarding contention of Mr. Goswami, I may like to refer to the words 'before recovering such damages' occurring in the proviso to sub clause (1) of section 85 B and these words, clearly indicate that before a process of recovery of damages under section 85B, the authority has got power to hear the employer. However, once the process of recovery of damages starts and if there is any dispute regarding the amount of damages it can also be decided by the Em­ployees' Insurance Court under section 75 of the Act. 9, Coming to the case in hand, I find from the order passed by the Regional Director, Exhibit 1 that before this order was passed the Regional Director had assessed damages. It is not clear from record whether earlier damages were ordered after giving reasonable opportunity to the employer. 9, Coming to the case in hand, I find from the order passed by the Regional Director, Exhibit 1 that before this order was passed the Regional Director had assessed damages. It is not clear from record whether earlier damages were ordered after giving reasonable opportunity to the employer. I have perused the impugned order of the Employees' State Insurance Court and I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order. I agree with the learned Court that before the order at Exhibit I employer should have been heard on the basis of the show-cause. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the pres­ent app;al aud accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.