JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant is aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Single Judge reducing the quantum of damages imposed by the Dy. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Jaipur. The Dy. Regional Director has imposed penalty by way of damages 100% of the amount in default. By perusing the scheme of Section 85-B, the learned Single Judge has held that quantum of damages as prescribed under Section 85-B is the maximum limit and not to be imposed as a matter of course in all cases, the competent officer appears to have imposed maximum damages without considering the room for exercise of his judicial discretion. 3. Reliance was placed on behalf of the Corporation on a Gazette Notification dated 23rd Nov., 1979 (Gazette of India), by which different rates of levying damages have been prescribed for urging that the Corporation has prescribed a uniform rate of damages in all cases depending on number of defaulted and period of continuing default, and therefore, the levy of 100% damages on the amount of default was warranted by the said Notification. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that, the Notification was published in contravention of the substantive provision laying rigid formula of levying maximum penalty and not leaving it to the discretion of the competent officer, has reduced the damages to 25% of the amount in default instead of 100% in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that Section 85-B authorises the Corporation to quantify the amount of damages and the Gazette Notification has prescribed the quantification of the damages by the Corporation. The quantification is not to be done by individual officer, therefore, according to the learned Counsel the order under appeal is erroneous to the extent it hold the Notification dated 23rd Nov., 1979 as a device to do indirectly what could not be done directly. 5. We do find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that parent provision gives authority for imposing damages on the Corporation and not on the individual officer and therefore, it rests within the province of the Corporation to provide guideline for uniform levy of damages in cases of multiple defaults. 5. We do find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that parent provision gives authority for imposing damages on the Corporation and not on the individual officer and therefore, it rests within the province of the Corporation to provide guideline for uniform levy of damages in cases of multiple defaults. However, on perusal of the said Notification, we find that the Corporation itself has not provided for fixed damages in cases of multiple defaults but has provided in each case maximum limit upto which damages can be imposed by the Managing Director or any person authorised by him to impose the amount of damages to be recovered from defaulting contributor. Thus, in our opinion, even under Notification dated 23rd Nov., 1979 the Corporation has left the levy of damages to be imposed in the discretion of the Managing Director or any person authorised by him in this behalf by prescribing damages upto the maximum limit in cases covered by the schedule, such damages can be imposed. Thus, the position under Section 85-B is modulated by the Notification that the authority determining the amount of damages has to act in his judicial discretion and impose damages upto the maximum limit prescribed under the Act keeping in view the Notification dated 23rd Nov., 1979, the maximum limit envisaged in each case depending upon the period of defaults and the number of defaults. Since the whole matter rests with the discretion of the authority and the learned Single Judge has found that the amount of damages quantified by considering it to be rigid formula of imposing damages in all cases, which is contrary to the scheme of the Act and notification, the conclusion still remains the same on merit. Since the learned Single Judge has found looking to the age of the case to determine the reasonable quantum of penalty instead of sending the matter back to the Corporation for deciding the issue afresh, we do not deem it justified and necessary to make any interference in the appeal. 6. Appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine, subject to aforesaid observations.Special appeal dismissed. *******