ORDER : Leave granted. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st February, 2008, passed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in LPA No. 252 of 2007, choosing not to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Learned Single Judge directing the petitioner therein to deposit 50% of the damages imposed under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The appellant herein challenged the said order on the ground that there was no provision in the aforesaid Act by which such a direction could have been given by the High Court. While issuing notice on 7th July, 2008 on the special leave petition we had directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the amount instead of 50% as directed by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court. It may be indicated that the appeal filed by the appellant is still pending before the Appellate Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the respondent, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, it has been contended that since the Tribunal as well as the High Court had exercised a discretionary jurisdiction, the same should not be interfered with by this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that although there was no statutory provision similar to Section 7-O of the Act in respect of a challenge to an order under Section 14-B, the intention of the Legislature would have to be taken into consideration and since, provident fund was a first charge, the principles of Section 7-O should also be read into the provision of Section 14-B of the above Act. In support of his submissions learned counsel referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Organo Chemical Industries and Others vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1979 SC 1803 and a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Sarvaraya Textiles Ltd. vs. The Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Commission, Hyderabad and Others, 2002 Lab. IC 1212. Learned counsel urged that in both the cases what had been sought to be emphasised was the fact that the imposition of damages is indicated to be a warning to the employees not to commit a breach of statutory requirements of Section 6, but at the same time it is meant to provide compensation or redress to the beneficiaries. Learned counsel urged that in both the cases what had been sought to be emphasised was the fact that the imposition of damages is indicated to be a warning to the employees not to commit a breach of statutory requirements of Section 6, but at the same time it is meant to provide compensation or redress to the beneficiaries. It was also observed that there is nothing in the Section to show that the damages imposed must bear relationship to the loss which is caused to the beneficiaries under the Scheme. Learned counsel urged that having regard to the above, the order of the learned Appellate Tribunal directing deposit of 50% of the damages imposed as a condition for stay, as upheld by the High Court, did not warrant any interference. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the respondent, having regard to the fact that had it been the intention of the legislature to also include the principles incorporated in Section 7-O of the above Act, the same would have been indicated in the provision relating to filing of appeals against such orders. Section 7-O makes specific reference to orders passed in terms of Section 7-A where it has been laid down that no appeal by the employer shall be entertained unless he has deposited 75% of the amount due from him as determined by an officer referred to in Section 7-A. The proviso to Section 7-O, however, grants the Tribunal discretion for reasons to be recorded in writing, to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under the said Section. There is no such provision as far as Section 14-B is concerned. 4. Apart from the above, the provision for preferring an appeal in respect of an order under Section 14-B is contained in Section 7-I of the above Act which provides for appeals to the Tribunal, inter-alia against orders passed under Section 14-B. Sub-Section (2) of Section 7-I indicates that every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed. There is nothing to indicate that any part of the amount awarded under Section 14-B was required to be deposited at the time of filing of the appeal. 5. There is nothing to indicate that any part of the amount awarded under Section 14-B was required to be deposited at the time of filing of the appeal. 5. When specific provision has been made with regard to appeals under Section 7-A and under Section 7-O, a definite provision has been indicated for deposit of 75% of the awarded amount and there is no such provision in Section 7-I, we cannot read the principles of Section 7-O into the provisions of Section 7-I in relation to appeals under Section 14-B of the above Act. 6. The decisions cited by learned counsel appearing for the respondent are not of any help to the case of the respondent, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in the context of this case. 7. We, therefore, allow the appeal and confirm our order dated 7th July, 2008. We are informed that the said amount of 25% has been duly deposited in the Tribunal. As directed in our order of 7th July, 2008, the amount deposited is to be kept in a short term fixed deposit, which is to be renewed until the disposal of the pending appeal. The said order shall continue till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal.