ORDER A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Company Limited by shares and is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It carries on the business of manufacture of graded castings including diesel engine pumping sets. The respondent issued a show cause notice dated April 16, 1984 (Annexure-A) to the petitioner in terms of the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Scheme framed thereunder for levy of damages. This notice was thus issued under Section 14B of the Act. After hearing the petitioner, the respondent passed the order on December 1, 1984 (Annexure-B) in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 14B of the Act and ordered the payment of damages for the period from June 1980 to September 1980, March 1982, June 1982, October 1982 and January 1983. The damages were quantified as Rs. 74,087.65 p. The show cause notice (Annexure-A) and Order (Annexure-B) are under challenge in this petition. 2. The respondent has filed the detailed return. 3. I have heard counsel for both the sides. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed is mechanical one on the face of it and is, therefore, liable to be dislodged. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the order is legal and valid and is not liable to be faulted with. The counsel for the non-applicant has placed reliance on Organo Chemical Industries and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1979-II-LLJ-416)(SC), and the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in M.P. No. 433/82 (New Precision (India) Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr.) and M.P. No. 8 of 82 (New Precision (India) Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, M.P. and Anr.). 5. I have perused the order Annexure-B. I find that all relevant considerations have been taken into account by the respondent. The order passed is a speaking order. It is not found to be passed capriciously or arbitrarily. As held in Organo Chemicals Industries' case (supra) the intention of enacting Section 14B, as amended, was to invest the respondent with power to impose such damages as to convey to the employer that it would not be profitable to make default in making payment. It is not found to be passed capriciously or arbitrarily. As held in Organo Chemicals Industries' case (supra) the intention of enacting Section 14B, as amended, was to invest the respondent with power to impose such damages as to convey to the employer that it would not be profitable to make default in making payment. The order clearly spells out the conduct and the fault of the petitioner in the matter of making contributions to the funds. The discretion is not found to be tainted with any vice. 6. Lord Mansfield stated in classical terms in John Wilkes case 1970 4 Burr. 2528 that discretion meant sound discretion guided by law and governed by Rule, not by humour. Testing the order on that basis I find that the discretion exercised is quite sound. The counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any infirmity which may warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction. The impugned order contains as under: "I have applied my mind to all the relevant facts and have gone into the reasons stated by the employer in his representation dated October 12, 1984 and also at the time of personal hearing on October 18, 1984. My findings on each of the contention of the employer are as under:- i. I consider that the financial difficulties faced by the establishment cannot be a valid ground for committing defaults of the payment of Provident Rind dues, especially when-the Employees' share, deducted from their salary/wages, has not been paid. The plea regarding financial difficulties has already been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Organo Chemicals v. Union of India and Ors. (supra). ii. Their second contention has also no force as it is an internal affair of the establishment." 7. In view of the aforesaid position, no ground is made out for dislodging and demolishing the order. 8. In the result I find that this petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Security amount shall be refunded to the petitioner after due verification.