Judgment : Heard by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner-Company had become sick as contemplated under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 in the year 1996-1997 itself. The wages were paid and so also the provident fund contribution, in time. There were disputes during the period 1996-2000. The petitioner replied and explained the delay and submitted not to claim interest and damages from the company. They prayed to drop the proceedings. The Authority, however, by order dated 04.12.2008, without assigning specific reason and infact without considering the grounds so raised, by unreasoned order directed to pay damages to the tune of Rs.27,58,091/- including the interest. 3. An appeal under section 7I of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”), was preferred. The appellant-petitioner again raised various issues of jurisdiction, limitation and pointed out the difficulties which they were facing and they are facing. The delay in such cases definitely cause prejudice. It is not the case that they have not paid regular contribution as required under the law. The case is of reassessment of damages and interest as the demands were raised after so many years. The explanation was not considered and passed the mechanical order and imposed the amount in question. The Appellate Tribunal though accepted that there was delay in initiation of the proceeding but rejected the case of the petitioner without assigning specific reason for delay in taking action as contended. The question is not of only delay but the initiation of the same. 4. The change of position, loss of documents, misplacement of documents and/or non availability of documents/record definitely goes to the root of their defence in case of such delay. Timely action is a must. Both the Authorities, in my view, ought to have considered the reply and the submission so made by the petitioner in support of their defence and basically when the petitioner-Company was sick in the year 1996-1997 itself. The Competent Authority, under these circumstances require to consider all the background before imposing such huge damages together with the interest. It is also necessary for them to give the reasons item-wise just the arithmetic calculation is not sufficient. The Authority should give the basic reasons for the damages so assessed for the period and also the interest awarded. 5. The Competent Authority, under these circumstances require to consider all the background before imposing such huge damages together with the interest. It is also necessary for them to give the reasons item-wise just the arithmetic calculation is not sufficient. The Authority should give the basic reasons for the damages so assessed for the period and also the interest awarded. 5. Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, I am inclined to set aside both the orders. The impugned orders are accordingly quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are free to take or initiate proceedings in accordance with law and pass order after giving opportunity to both the parties. It is made clear that amount which is already deposited before the Appellate Authority be adjusted in accordance with law. The petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. 6. Civil Application is also accordingly disposed of.