JUDGMENT K Narayan Kurup, J. 1. The challenge in this Original Petition is directed against Ext. P-1 order passed by the respondent in exercise of the powers conferred on him by S.14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Government notification No. S.O. 548 (E), dated 16th October 1973 imposing on the petitioner damages to the tune of Rs. 16,138.40 on account of delayed payment of Provident Fund arrears as follows: (1) The Provident Fund contribution 13,691,60 in A/c No I (ii) Family Pension contributions 1,400.50 in A/c No X (iii) The Administrative charges 512.60 in A/c No II (iv) The Deposit Linked Insurance contribution 493.10 in A/c No XXI (v) The Administrative charges 40.60 in A/c No XXII Total 16,138.40 2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows: The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. It is an 'establishment' covered under the Act. On default being committed by the company in paying the arrears of provident fund contribution due under the Act, a notice was issued to it from the office of the respondent vide letter No. K.R./185/Enf. II (4)/ 88/1981, 2281 and 4530, dated 15th July 1988, 5th August 1988 and 20th March 1990 to show cause why damages as envisaged under S.14B of the Act shall not be recovered from it. The petitioner was also asked to appear before the respondent on 2nd August 1988, 10th August 1988, 11th August 1988, 22nd December 1988, 11th July 1989 and 2nd April 1990. In response to the notice issued to the petitioner, the Finance Manager of the petitioner's establishment appeared before the respondent and explained the circumstances for the belated payment. After hearing the petitioner's representative, the respondent passed Ext. P-1 order No. K.R./185/Enf. II (4)/Dam. Cell/90, dated 19th April 1990 imposing on the petitioner a sum of Rs.16,138.40 as damages for the delayed payment of arrears of provident fund contribution due under the Act. Ext. P1 is under challenge in this original petition as already noticed. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent in passing Ext. P-1 order has not adverted to the various contentions raised by the petitioner's representative at the time of hearing. On a perusal of Ext. Ext. P1 is under challenge in this original petition as already noticed. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent in passing Ext. P-1 order has not adverted to the various contentions raised by the petitioner's representative at the time of hearing. On a perusal of Ext. P1, it is seen that none of the contentions raised by the petitioner's representative is seen adverted to by the respondent while . passing Ext. P1. No reason is seen mentioned in Ext. P1 as to why this particular quantum is fixed as damages. All that is stated is that it is necessary to impose exemplary damages to make good the loss of interest caused to the funds and also to set off the increase in the cost of administration and also to ensure that such defaults arc not repeated in future and the dues are deposited in time. In this connection, it has to be noted that under S.14B of the Act, before imposition of penalty, the authority concerned has to apply his mind to the relevant fact's such as whether the employer is a chronic defaulter and the nature and frequency of default, period of delay involved, amount involved, etc. Ext. P1 does not show that the respondent has adverted to these relevant facts. This court had occasion to examine the nature of the power conferred on the authorities under S.14B and the matters to be considered by the authority while imposing penalty in the decision reported in Cannanore Shop v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1992 (2) KLT 95 wherein it was observed as follows: "Under S.14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, penalty can be imposed. The authority has to consider the relevant facts whether the employer is in the habit of making payment regularly, nature, number and frequency of defaults, the period and delay involved, amounts involved and all other considerations have to be taken into account. The authority is required to apply its mind or; the facts and circumstances of the case."� On a perusal of Ext. P1, it can be seen that none of these considerations, has weighed with the authority while imposing the damages in question. Ext. P1 has been passed mechanically and without proper application of mind. Moreover, no counter affidavit is seen filed by the respondent in this case. In. P1, it can be seen that none of these considerations, has weighed with the authority while imposing the damages in question. Ext. P1 has been passed mechanically and without proper application of mind. Moreover, no counter affidavit is seen filed by the respondent in this case. In. the result, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this Original Petition. Ext. P1 is quashed. However, the respondent will be at liberty to pass fresh orders after adverting to the relevant facts and circumstances as mentioned above and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Original Petition is allowed with no order as to costs.