JUDGMENT : Rajesh Bindal, J. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has challenged the orders dated 23.3.2012 (Annexure P-4) and 1.5.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short “the Tribunal”) in an application filed by respondent No. 2 along with appeal challenging the order pertaining to levy interest and damages. It is a case, in which respondent No. 2, which is appellant before the Tribunal had purchased the properties of M/s Punjab Fibers Limited-respondent No. 3 in an auction, conducted by the Industrial Finance Corporation of India under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”). Sale certificate in favour of respondent No. 2 was issued on 15.12.2010. As the petitioner had to recover huge amount from M/s Punjab Fibers Limited, whose property was auctioned for recovery of secured debts by the Industrial Finance Corporation of India, respondent No. 2 was directed to pay the amount. After respondent No. 2 had taken over the assets of M/s Punjab Fibers Limited, notices were issued for levying of interest and damages on account of default committed by M/s Punjab Fibers Limited. Assessment on account of interest and damages was made vide order dated 15.4.2011 for the period from April, 2001 to October, 2010 and vide order dated 24.2.2012 for the period from November, 1999 to October, 2010. 2. Against the aforesaid two orders dated 15.4.2011 and 24.2.2012, respondent No. 2 preferred appeals before the Tribunal. After hearing the stay application in ATA No. 329 (11) 2012 against the order dated 24.2.2012 levying interest and damages, the Tribunal stayed the operation of the impugned order and further directed for release of the attachment of the properties, made vide recovery certificates dated 13.2.2004 and 20.1.2011/25.1.2011, while directing issue of notice in the appeal, vide order dated 1.5.2012. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal reiterated its earlier order dated 23.3.2012 and directed for release of attachment of properties of the establishment. The appeal is now stated to be listed on 4.9.2012. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal reiterated its earlier order dated 23.3.2012 and directed for release of attachment of properties of the establishment. The appeal is now stated to be listed on 4.9.2012. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of passing of the order in an application for interim stay filed by respondent No. 2 along with the appeal, the Tribunal has passed two orders, namely, staying the operation of the order impugned in the appeal and further directing release of attachment of properties vide recovery certificates dated 13.2.2004 and 20.1.2011/25.1.2011. He further submitted that in terms of the provisions of the Act, the appeal could be entertained only on deposit of 75% of the demand raised. The Tribunal has not mentioned as to why the operation of the impugned order has been stayed and what are the reasons for waiving of the condition of pre-deposit. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that earlier various demands were raised by the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner by passing different orders against M/s Punjab Fibers Limited. It was on account of provident fund dues, interest and damages. The total amount determined by the Commissioner was Rs 2,92,51,263, as informed to respondent No. 2 in response to the application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide communication dated 19.5.2011. He further referred to the order dated 7.2.2012 (Annexure R-2/F) passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 435 of 2010, titled as M/s Ashajyoti Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. IFCI Ltd. & Ors., in which it has been recorded that a sum of Rs. 2,95,96,196 has been paid by respondent No. 2 to the Provident Fund Department. 5. He further submitted that recovery certificates attaching properties of M/s Punjab Fibers Limited, which had been purchased by respondent No. 2, had been issued when provident fund dues, interest and damages were assessed against M/s Punjab Fibers Limited prior to the passing of the impugned orders. He referred to the dates of recovery certificates i.e. 13.2.2004 and 20.1.2011/25.1.2011. He further submitted that once the entire amount as was assessed against M/s Punjab Fibers Limited had been paid by respondent No. 2, attachment of the property for recovery of the amount had been rendered infructuous. The Tribunal had only stayed operation of those attachment orders. He referred to the dates of recovery certificates i.e. 13.2.2004 and 20.1.2011/25.1.2011. He further submitted that once the entire amount as was assessed against M/s Punjab Fibers Limited had been paid by respondent No. 2, attachment of the property for recovery of the amount had been rendered infructuous. The Tribunal had only stayed operation of those attachment orders. He further submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 7-O of the Act, the condition for prior deposit of 75% of the demand raised, which is impugned before the Tribunal pertains to assessment u/s 7A of the Act. In the present case the order impugned before the Tribunal pertains to the assessment of interest and damages under Sections 7Q and 14-B of the Act. In that case the condition of pre-deposit is not applicable. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in Old Village Industries Ltd. Vs. The Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Another, (2005) 2 BC 138 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that respondent No. 2 has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,95,96,196 with the Provident Fund Department. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal while directing the provident fund authorities to lift the attachments made vide recovery certificates dated 13.2.2004 and 20.1.2011/25.1.2011, as apparently those recovery certificates attaching the properties of M/s. Punjab Fibers Limited were issued when vide various orders assessments had been made for provident fund dues, interest and damages against M/s Punjab Fibers Limited. The total amount due upto 19.4.2011 from M/s. Punjab Fibers Limited was Rs. 2,92,51,263, as was informed to respondent No. 2 in a query under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs. 2,95,96,196 has already been deposited by respondent No. 2. Apparently it means that whatever amount was due from M/s. Punjab Fibers Limited, the same has already been paid by respondent No. 2. The recovery certificates as is evident from the dates, pertains to the period prior to respondent No. 2 taking over the assets of M/s Punjab Fibers Limited, hence, in case the Tribunal had stayed the impugned orders of attachment of property, the same cannot be faulted with. 8. The recovery certificates as is evident from the dates, pertains to the period prior to respondent No. 2 taking over the assets of M/s Punjab Fibers Limited, hence, in case the Tribunal had stayed the impugned orders of attachment of property, the same cannot be faulted with. 8. As far as the contention raised by teamed counsel for the petitioner regarding waiving of requirement of pre-deposit of 75% of the amount disputed before the Tribunal before entertaining the appeal is concerned, a perusal of Section 7-O of the Act clearly shows that the condition is applicable only in case where the amount had been determined u/s 7-A of the Act. The relevant provision is reproduced hereunder - 7-O Deposit of amount due, on filing appeal.--No appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal unless he has deposited with it seventy-five per cent of the amount due from him as determined by an officer referred to in Section 7A. The aforesaid provision does not provide that condition of pre-deposit is applicable in cases of assessments under Sections 7Q or 14B of the Act. The demand raised and impugned before the Tribunal in the present case is under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Act. Under these circumstances, no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in staying the operation of the order impugned in appeal before it. Similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Old Village Industries Ltd.'s case (supra), relevant para thereof is extracted below:- 6. The power to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited is relatively to the amount determined by the Officer u/s 7-A of the Act. In other words the pre-requisite of deposit of 75% of the demanded amount applicable to an order passed u/s 7A and not to other provisions. The Legislature in its own wisdom has restricted the application of the provisions of Section 7(1) to the order passed u/s 7A. Such provisions are to be construed strictly and cannot be given a wider meaning so as to create a liability which is intended to be correct to the entertainment of an appeal. The liability to deposit arises in the situation strictly contemplated under the provisions of this section. There is nothing in the section so as to extend its application to an order passed u/s 14B of the Act. The liability to deposit arises in the situation strictly contemplated under the provisions of this section. There is nothing in the section so as to extend its application to an order passed u/s 14B of the Act. An employer has a right to prefer an appeal against an order u/s 14B, u/s 7(1) of the Act but the pre-condition of deposit for entertainment of such an appeal is not covered u/s 7-0 of the Act. Thus, I have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the respondents that it would be mandatory for the employer to deposit 75% of such amount before appeal can be entertained or even that there cannot be stay of recovery of the said amount by the Appellate Authority. The argument raised on behalf of the respondents would be untenable even for another reason that damage is the consequence of the demand raised u/s 7A of the Act. The provisions of Section 14B of the Act attracted only if there is default on the part of the employer. It being a consequential liability essentially must fail in a category of not the principal liability to attract stringent provisions of predeposit to the hearing of the appeal Such provisions being related to revenue would be construed strictly whether to the advantage or disadvantage of the person upon whom the liability is sought to be fastened. Once the provisions of Section 7-O does not include an appeal against an order u/s 14-B then it would be in no way permissible to include such an order by implication or otherwise.(sic) For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Dismissed.