ORDER 02.03.2012 - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party No.2 2. The petitioner assails the order dated 18.5.2005 passed by the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Berhampur, Orissa, opposite party No.2, in P.D. Case No.1 of 2005-06 imposing penal damages and interest of Rs.63,012.00 under the provisions of Sections 14-B and 7-Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for brevity. 3. The facts of the case are not disputed. The present petitioner has purchased the industrial unit in question in a public auction held by the Orissa State Financial Corporation (for short "OSFC") after seizure of the same from the original owner under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act on 4.2.1998. Admittedly, the penal damages have been calculated for the period from 3rd March 1992 to 4th April, 2000 for delayed payment of the dues to the Provident Fund Organization as required under the statute. 4. The only question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner is liable to the delayed payment of contribution to the EPF organization during the period prior to its purchase of the same from the OSFC. Similar question came up for adjudication in the case of M/s. Suburban Ply and Panels (P) Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Orissa and others; 2004 (1) OLR 284 wherein this Court decided that whenever there has been a transfer of undertaking in pursuant to Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act and the subsequent purchaser is not liable to be saddled with penal damages as envisaged under Section 17-B of the Act shall not be applicable as it is not a transfer as ordinarily understood which connotes a voluntary transaction entered into between two parties. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of M/s. M.J. Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others; 100 (2005) CLT 265. 5. In that view of the matter the action of opposite party No.2 for saddling dues with the petitioner from 3rd March, 1992 to 4th April, 1998 is illegal. However, if there is any delayed payment after 4.2.1998 then the proceeding is maintainable against the petitioner. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. 5. In that view of the matter the action of opposite party No.2 for saddling dues with the petitioner from 3rd March, 1992 to 4th April, 1998 is illegal. However, if there is any delayed payment after 4.2.1998 then the proceeding is maintainable against the petitioner. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.5.2005 passed by opposite party No.2 in the aforesaid case is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to opposite party No.2, who shall reassess the penal damages, if any, of the petitioner from 4.2.1998 to 4th April, 2000. 7. It is submitted that in the interregnum, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with opposite party No.1, the same may be adjusted towards the final penal damages, which may be imposed on it. The parties are directed to appear before opposite party No.2 on 22.3.2012 and produce a copy of this order. Petition allowed.