Judgment :- 1. The appellant is the respondent and the respondent is the petitioner in ESIOP No. 1/84 on the file of Employees State Insurance Court at Pondicherry. 2. The respondent/petitioner herein fded an application under Section 75(g) of ESI Act to set aside the order dated 18/11/1983 passed by the appellant-Corporation on the following grounds: The respondent/petitioner herein received on 8/12/1983 an order dated 18.11.1983 issued by the respondent imposing on the petitioner damages totalling Rs. 2,223/- for an alleged delay in payment of contributions due under the ESI Act of 1948 for the contribution periods 7/80, 9/80, 11/80, 1/81 and 3/81. The petitioner has paid all the contributions due to the respondent for these contribution periods and the delay is due to the persistent refusal of respondent to determine the amount on the basis of the petitioners records. The delay in payment of contributions was on account of the failure of the respondent to determine the correct amount due on the basis of the records available with the petitioner. The petitioner has not wilfully or wantonly delayed the payment. Petitioner was continuously requesting the respondent to fix the exact amount and in the mean while, he has also paid the entire amount due as per his own calculations. The respondent is now claiming damages for the delay due to his failure to inspect the petitioners records and assess the correct amount due. 3. The appellant-Corporation filed a counter statement before the lower Court raising the following contentions: It is denied that the orders imposing damages is not justified and that the delay in payment of contributions was due to the fact that the contribution could not be determined by the respondent on the actual records. The damages were levied for the period commencing from 7/80 to 3/81 and the actual delay in paying the contribution by the petitioner is shown in the final order dated 18.11.1983. It is also incumbent on the part of the petitioner to pay the contribution in respect of every employee as required under Section 40 of the Act and therefore the contention that the contributions have not been assessed by the respondent is improper and untenable. It is denied that the damages have been levied on contribution paid in time. 4. It is also incumbent on the part of the petitioner to pay the contribution in respect of every employee as required under Section 40 of the Act and therefore the contention that the contributions have not been assessed by the respondent is improper and untenable. It is denied that the damages have been levied on contribution paid in time. 4. On the above pleadings and on the materials placed before him, the learned Judge of the ESI Court at Pondicherry came to the conclusion that there was no wilful or wanton act on the part of the respondent/petitioner herein, and everything was consequential to the delayed processing of the assessment of contribution by the appellant-ESI Corporation, and therefore the impugned order dated 18.11.1983 is liable to be set aside in view of the fact that the respondent/petitioner herein did not appear to be at fault, and in the result he allowed the petition. Aggrieved against the said findings of the ESI Court at Pondicherry in its Order dated 25/11/1987 in ESI O.P. No. 1/84 the appellant-ESI Corporation has preferred this appeal. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are as follows: 1. Whether the order of the ESI Corporation dated 18.11.1983 imposing damages to the tune of Rs. 2223/- on the respondent/petitioner herein is liable to be set aside? 2. To what relief are the parties entitled? 6. Point No. 1: Both the parties to the ESI OP No. 1/84 did not adduce any oral evidence and they rest content with the averments in the O.P. as well as in the counter statement and with the order passed on 18.11.1983 by the Deputy Regional Director of the ESI Corporation at Madras. The first objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner herein is that no substantial question of law arises in this case, and so the appeal is not maintainable under law in view of Section 82 (2) of the ESI Act, which stated that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of ESI Act, if it involves a substantial question of law. The lower Court proceeds on the assumption that there must be wilful or wanton act in the payment of contribution by the employer to the ESI Corporation. The lower Court proceeds on the assumption that there must be wilful or wanton act in the payment of contribution by the employer to the ESI Corporation. This approach of the lower Court is totally outside the provision of the ESI Act, and this perception of the lower Court is totally outside the scheme of the ESI Act, and in what way substantial question of law has been raised in this appeal. Therefore in my view, the appeal is maintainable under law. 7. Now turning to the question of consideration of the appeal on merits under the ESI Act, it is the duty of the employer to file the return and pay the contribution, and once it is not paid, it attracts the levy of interest and imposition of damages. This can be seen from the following provisions of ESI Act. Section 39(4) of the ESI Act states as follows:— “The contribution payable in respect of each wage period shall ordinarily fall due on the last day of the wage period and where an employee is employed for part of the wage period or is employed under two or more employers during the same wage period, the contributions shall fall due on such days as may be specified in the regulations”. Section 43 of the ESI Act deals with the method of payment of contribution by stating that the Corporation may make regulations relating to the payment and collection of contributions payable under the Act. Regulation No. 26 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations of 1950 stipulates as follows: 26(1): “Every employer shall send a return of contributions in quandraduplicate in form 6 along with receipted copies of chalans for the amounts deposited in the Bank, to the appropriate office by registered post or messenger, in respect of all employees for whom contributions were payable in a contribution period, so as to reach that office: (a) within 42 days of the termination of contribution period to which it relates”. Thus a perusal of these provisions in the ESI Act and the general regulations framed thereunder makes it clear that every employer shall send a return of contribution along with the receipted copies of chalans for the payment of the contribution amount into the Bank in respect of all employees within 42 days of the termination of the contribution period to which it relates. So it is the bounden duty of the employer to send the return of contribution along with the receipts for the payment of contribution amount into the Bank. 8. Regulation 31 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulation of 1950 further states as follows: “An employer, who is liable to pay contributions in respect of any employee, shall pay those contributions within 21 days of the last day of the calendar month in which the contributions fall due”. So this Regulation 31 fixed the outer time limit for the payment of contribution i.e., the employer is bound to pay the contributions in respect of employees within 21 days of the last day of the calendar month. In other words the employer must pay the contribution on the next calendar month within 21 days. 9. Regulation 31-C of the same Regulations of the year 1950 further stipulates as follows: “An employer, who fails to pay contributions within the periods specified under Regulations 31 or any other amount payable under the Act, shall be liable to pay damages”. A reading of these Regulations will make it clear that all these provisions are mandatory and if the employer fails to pay the contribution amount within the period specified in Regulation 31, then he is liable to pay damages under Regulation 31-C. There is no question of any wilful act or wanton act in the payment of contribution amount because if the time limit for payment is not kept up by the employer, then he must be mulcted with interest and damages as stated in Regulation 31 -A and 31 -C of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations of 1950. Therefore the approach of the lower Court that there must be wilful or wanton act in delayed payment of the contribution amount is erroneous and it cannot be sustained”. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner contended that the Deputy Regional Director of the ESI Corporation, Madras who passed the order dated 18.11.1983 did not apply his mind and he levied the damages mechanically and so the order passed by him is liable to be set aside. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner contended that the Deputy Regional Director of the ESI Corporation, Madras who passed the order dated 18.11.1983 did not apply his mind and he levied the damages mechanically and so the order passed by him is liable to be set aside. In support of the above contention he has drawn my attention to the decision of a Division Bench of our High Court reported in Beama Manufacturers Private Limited v. E.S.I. Corporation (1989 (II) MLJ 131), wherein it was laid down as follows: “In the matter of levy of damages under Section 85-B of the Act which is penal in nature, the authority concerned is duty-bound to act in a judicial manner to determine the question after assessment of all the relevant factors and not in a cursory manner. The matter should be dealt with in an objective manner and the order must disclose that there was, in fact, an application of the mind on the part of authority to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The failure on the part of the employer to offer his explanation to is show cause shall not absolve the authority from the obligation. He shall do the assessment as per the materials available with him and the order must disclose that the authority, in fact, applied his mind”. 11. The above contention is untenable and the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner will have no application to the facts of the present case for the following reasons. That decision was rendered where there was no detailed order passed in that case. Such is not the case before us. Here a detailed order has been passed on 18.11.1983. For better appreciation of this contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner, it is but necessary for me to extra ct the entire order dated 18.11.1983, which runs as follows:— “Whereas a notice was issued on 28.3.83 to show cause why damages should not be levied for contribution periods ending 7/80, 9/80, 11/80, 1/81 and 3/81, Whereas the employer replied on 21st April 1983 and sought for a personal hearing, Shri M. Mohan, Accountant appeared before me for personal hearing on 10.11.1983 with an authorisation letter. He also gave a statement regarding the particulars of payments made for the contribution periods ending 7/80, 9/80, 11/80, 11/81, 3/81, 5/81, 7/81, 9/81, 11/81 and 3/82. In the reply dated 21st April 1983, the employer had pleaded that for certain periods, contributions were paid before the due date and therelore there is no question of claiming damages. Further he has pleaded that in respect of other payments, as interest has been levied, not to levy damages. Further, he has referred to two cases which he had filed in the ESI Court and according to which he had deposited about Rs. 28,000/-. On scrutiny of the dated payments made by the employer, it is found that the em ployer has delayed payments to the following extent in respect of the wage periods except for September, 1980. (Particulars omitted — Ed.) XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Therefore only in respect of one wage period, the employer has paid contributions in time whereas he has delayed in the payment of contributions in respect of all other wage periods. Regarding the employers contention that since interest is levied, damages should not be levided, it must be stated that both are separate. Therefore his plea not to levy damages cannot be accepted. His reference to the two cases filed by him are also not relevant in respect of all these wage periods for damages, because th ey are related to different periods. Though in the notice 100% damages are proposed, I take a lenient view and impose 19% per annum as damages on the contribution amount paid late in respect of all wage period in question. In all I levy 2223/- as damages”. 12. A fair reading of the said order dated 18.11.1983 would disclose that the Deputy Regional Director of ESI Corporation, Madras, who passed that order, gave all the details regarding the period, due date, date of payment and the period of delay and also he perused the records with regard to the payments available in this case. In such circumstances it is futile to contend that the Deputy Regional Director of ESI Corporation, Madras has not applied his mind and he mechanically passed the order dated 18.11.1983. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am to hold that the order of the ESI Corporation dated 18.11.1983 imposing damages to the tune of Rs. In such circumstances it is futile to contend that the Deputy Regional Director of ESI Corporation, Madras has not applied his mind and he mechanically passed the order dated 18.11.1983. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am to hold that the order of the ESI Corporation dated 18.11.1983 imposing damages to the tune of Rs. 2223/- on the respondent/petitioner herein is not liable to be set aside, and so the petition filed by the respondent/petitioner herein before the ESI Court at Pondicherry in ESIOP 1/84 has to be dismissed with costs, and consequently I answer this point in favour of the appellant-Corporation and as against the respondent/petitioner herein. 13. Point No. 2 : It follows from the findings on the earlier point that this appeal has to be allowed as prayed for with costs, and the order of the ESI Court at Pondicherry in ESI OP No. 1/84 dated 25.11.1987 is set aside, and the petition in ESI OP No. 1/84 is dismissed with costs, and consequently I answer this point also in favour of the appellant and as against the Respondent. 14. In the result the appeal is allowed as prayed for with costs. The order of the ESI Court at Pondicherry in ESI OP No. 1/84 dated 25.11.1987 is set aside and ESI OP No. 1/84 filed by the respondent/petitioner herein is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 250/- in this C.M.A.