JUDGMENT : R.R. TRIPATHI, J. 1. Employees Provident Fund Organization through the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajkot, is before this Court, being aggrieved by order dated 23.03.2007, passed in ATA No. 97(5)/2005 by the Employees Provident Fund Tribunal at New Delhi, whereby the appellate tribunal is pleased to set aside the order dated 30.12.2004, passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A, on Page-10 to the petition. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner was pleased to pass an order under Section-14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), imposing Penal Damages on the respondent-herein of Rs. 76,052/-. Being aggrieved by this order, the respondent, herein, filed an appeal and the appellate authority was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. 2. The matter requires consideration. 3. RULE. Learned Advocate, Mr. Pankaj R. Desai, waives service of rule for the respondent. 4. At the request of learned Advocate, Mr. Mehta, for the petitioner, the matter is taken up for final hearing, to which learned Advocate, Mr. Desai, for the respondent has no objection. 5. Learned Advocate, Mr. Mehta, appearing for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to para-4 of the Tribunal's order, which reads as under: "4. The APFC Rajkot in the impugned order noted that a notice was issued to the appellant and on that basis alone it was presumed by the APFC, Rajkot that the appellant is not interested to defend the case. It shows that no proper enquiry has been conducted by the APFC, Rajkot while levying damages under Section-14-B of the Act. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable in law and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside being conceit of violation of law. Appeal is allowed. Appeal file be consigned to record room. Copy of the order be given / send to both the parties." 6. Learned Advocate, Mr. Mehta, further, invited attention of this Court to the facts of the case, which are not in dispute. The respondent was held liable to make the PF contribution, right from May, 1994. It is not in dispute that the contribution was made by the respondent, for the fist time, only in the year 1998, and therefore, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner held him liable for damages under Section-14B of the said Act. The respondent was held liable to make the PF contribution, right from May, 1994. It is not in dispute that the contribution was made by the respondent, for the fist time, only in the year 1998, and therefore, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner held him liable for damages under Section-14B of the said Act. In this regard, relevant part of the order, dated 30.12.2004, is reproduced for ready perusal, herein below: "Whereas M/s. West End Time (P) Ltd. Rajkot (herein after called the establishment) is an establishment covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 bearing code no. GJ/40082. Whereas establishment was duty bound to remit PF contribution within 15 days of close of the month and whereas establishment has delayed the payment of Provident Fund and other statutory dues for the period 05/1994 to 03/1999. A 14B notice was issued vide No. GJ/RAJ/CIRCLE......DAMAGES/ GJ/40082/CA/373, dated........It is presumed that the employer is not interested to defend his case. Whereas, the remittance of PF & Allied dues within the prescribed time limit is a statutory obligation cast upon the employer in view of the liability of the department to pay interest to the subscribers. The late remittance of the same attracts Penal Damages u/s 14B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952." 7. It is this order, wherein the appellate Tribunal has held that: "4....It shows that no proper enquiry has been conducted by the APFC, Rajkot while levying damages under Section-14B of the Act." 8. This Court is not able to conceive as to what 'enquiry', the appellate Tribunal is referring to. The facts of the case are clear and there is no dispute about the same. Then, the question remains in a very narrow compass and that question is, if, there is late payment, u/s 14B, there is a provision for levying 'Penal Damages'. It is possible that the order of the APFC was not articulated as may be expected by the appellate tribunal, but, only on that ground the order cannot be held to be defective by saying that APFC did not hold any enquiry. APFC did issue notice to the establishment and establishment chose not to appear / respond to that notice. It is possible that the order of the APFC was not articulated as may be expected by the appellate tribunal, but, only on that ground the order cannot be held to be defective by saying that APFC did not hold any enquiry. APFC did issue notice to the establishment and establishment chose not to appear / respond to that notice. In view of that, this Court is of the opinion that APFC had no other option but to proceed further with the matter and calculate the Penal Damages u/s 14B of the said Act and to pass order. In the present case, it is not open for the respondent-establishment to argue that it did not know that they are liable to make PF contribution, when they started the establishment in the year 1994. Their liability to make PF contribution arose in the year 1994 despite that, till 1998, they did not discharge the same. No application was made by the respondent-establishment. It was only when PF authorities noticed the lapse, they issued PF code to the respondent-establishment. In fact, there is total inaction on the part of the respondent-establishment and for that Penal Damages are levied. In fact, in the opinion of this Court, this is a fit case where, for wilful avoidance of payment of PF contribution, stringent actions were required to be taken against the respondent-establishment. 9. Be that as it may, the Court is required to consider as to whether the appellate tribunal is right in quashing the order passed by the APFC u/s 14B of the Act. 10. Learned Advocate, Mr. Desai, for the respondent-establishment vehemently submitted that soon after the PF Code was allotted to the respondent-establishment, it remitted the amount which was required to be paid. This submission cannot be accepted for the reason that the respondent-establishment who was under an obligation to pay PF contribution from the date it become liable to pay cannot be absolve its liability arising from late payment. The respondent-establishment cannot be heard of saying that it did not know about the liability of PF Contribution arising under the law. 11. Learned Advocate for the respondent-establishment is not able to advance any reason as to why the respondent-establishment did not make PF contribution from the date it became liable to pay i.e. in the year 1994. The respondent-establishment cannot be heard of saying that it did not know about the liability of PF Contribution arising under the law. 11. Learned Advocate for the respondent-establishment is not able to advance any reason as to why the respondent-establishment did not make PF contribution from the date it became liable to pay i.e. in the year 1994. Learned Advocate for the respondent- establishment is also not having any reason to advance as to why the respondent- establishment chose not lo respond to the notice issued by the APFC u/s 14B of the Act. In absence of any explanation to these two material reasons, this Court is of the opinion that APFC was justified in passing the order, imposing Penal Damages u/s 14B of the Act, and the appellate tribunal committed an error in quashing and setting aside that order on the ground that, no proper enquiry was held by APFC, Rajkot. 12. This Court tried to perceive as to what enquiry, the appellate tribunal is having in mind, but, of no avail. When the facts are admitted, namely, though, the respondent- establishment became liable to pay PF contribution in the year 1994, it paid the same in 1998 only and it did not respond to the notice issued by the APFC u/s 14B of the Act. Therefore, no further enquiry was required to be caused by the APFC. 13. Learned Advocate for the respondent-establishment, in support of his submissions, relied on the following decisions: Star of Gujarat Textile Mills Ltd. vs. Regional P.F. Commissioner and Another, 1993 (1) LLJ 1023 (Guj) Learned Advocate for the respondent-establishment invited attention of this Court to head-note-'A'. Emp. State Insurance Corporation vs. H.M.T. Ltd. and Another, (2008) 3 SCC 35 Learned Advocate for the respondent-establishment invited attention of this Court to head-note-'A'. Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, (1969) 2 SCC 627 Learned Advocate for the respondent-establishment invited attention of this Court to head-note-'B'. K.T. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. R.M. Gandhi and Others, 1994 (1) LLJ 66 (Bom) Learned Advocate for the respondent-establishment invited attention of this Court to head-note-'A'. Special Civil Application No. 3843 of 2008, Decided on 21.08.2008, in the matter of Employees Provident Fund Organization vs. JAI Corporation Ltd. Learned Advocate for the respondent-establishment invited attention of this Court to Paragraph Nos. 17, 18 and 44. Special Civil Application No. 3843 of 2008, Decided on 21.08.2008, in the matter of Employees Provident Fund Organization vs. JAI Corporation Ltd. Learned Advocate for the respondent-establishment invited attention of this Court to Paragraph Nos. 17, 18 and 44. Special Civil Application No. 15094 of 2005, Decided on 14.12.2005, in the matter of Employees Provident Fund Organization vs. Sihor Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. through its Manager Learned Advocate for the respondent-establishment invited attention of this Court to Paragraph No. 6. On a careful consideration, none of the decisions will apply to the facts of the present case. The law is clear on the point that under the Act, respondent-establishment was liable to pay PF contribution from the due date. In the present case, no reason is coming forward as to why, the respondent-establishment did not make any contribution. Therefore, the decision on the point of delay in initiating proceedings also cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the appellate tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside. In the result, this petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 23.03.2007 passed in ATA No. 97(5)/2005 by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi, is quashed and set aside. The respondent-establishment is expected to comply with the order passed by the APFC, Rajkot, at the earliest. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.