Judgment :- 1. The two writ petitions were filed by the same Management. 2. In the first writ petition, the challenge is to the order passed by the first respondent viz., Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal made in A.T.A.605(13)/2006 dated 31.12.2010. By the aforesaid order, the Tribunal held that their challenge to the levy of damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short EPF Act) is not maintainable as there was no challenge to the findings rendered in the statutory order passed under Section 7A of the EPF Act dated 11.09.2006. The writ petition was admitted on 30.03.2011. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted. 3. Subsequently, the same Management filed the second writ petition being W.P.No.17860 of 2011, challenging levy of damages and interest under Section 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act dated 10.06.2011. When that writ petition came up for hearing, it was directed to be posted along with the previous writ petition. In that writ petition, no interim order was granted though an application was filed in M.P.No.1 of 2011. 4. Heard the arguments of Mr.K.Kasthuri,learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.S.Jayaraman, counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Ramu, learned counsel for the respondents in W.P.No.8148 of 2011 and Mr.K.Gunasekar, learned counsel for the respondent in W.P.No.17860 of 2011. 5. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was initially issued with an order under Section 7A of the EPF Act dated 17.02.2006 in respect of their Unit at Hosur. Under the said order, they were directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,41,709.85 failing which they were also reminded that they will have to pay damages under Section 14B and interest under Section 7Q of the EPF Act. Subsequently, damages under Section 14B and interest under 7Q of the EPF Act were also levied. As against the order levying damages and interest for delayed payment of administrative charges, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal in ATA 605(13)/2006. That appeal was initially entertained by the Tribunal and interim order was granted. The petitioner also filed an application to raise additional grounds. 6. Before the Tribunal, a counter statement was filed by the Provident Fund Department. That appeal was initially entertained by the Tribunal and interim order was granted. The petitioner also filed an application to raise additional grounds. 6. Before the Tribunal, a counter statement was filed by the Provident Fund Department. In response to the averments made in Para 10.8 to Para 10.11 of the appeal grounds, the PF Department in Page 61 of the typed set averred as follows:- "Para 10.8 to Para 10.11: An employer does not have any obligation to pay P.F. contributions beyond the wage limit of Rs.5000/- Rs.6500/-as applicable from time to time. Nor, any employer is compelled to pay contributions beyond the statutory limit. However, any employee who is remitting P.F contributions on the total wages paid, beyond the wage limit, and if the employer is also ready to pay the contributions on the total wages paid, shall do so after filing a joint declaration by the employees and the employer. The very purpose of the joint declaration is to confirm that the employer shall pay the Inspection or Administrative Charges on the total wages paid. In the instant case, the employees have filed a joint declaration duly signed by the employer and employees wherein the employer has signed a declaration to the effect that they are agreeable to pay the Administrative Charges or Inspection Charges, as the case may be, on the total wages on which the contributions are recovered and paid to, the Fund." 7. After hearing the appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by stating that the substantive order under Section 7A of the EPF Act was not under challenge and they had subsequently deposited the amount. In the absence of challenge to the substantive order mere challenge to the levy of damages and interest cannot be entertained. 8. In the second writ petition, the petitioner has not moved the Tribunal and directly came to this Court challenging the order passed under Section 14B and 7Q dated 10.06.2011. 9. In both the writ petitions, counter affidavit has been filed. 10. In the counter affidavit filed in the first writ petition, it was stated that the authority has no power to reduce or modify the quantum of damages as there is no specific power vested on them. It was further stated that the Management was originally remitting inspection charges on the total wages for which PF contributions were paid, upto November 2006. It was further stated that the Management was originally remitting inspection charges on the total wages for which PF contributions were paid, upto November 2006. It is only from December 2006 when they stopped paying contributions, levy was made 12/2006 to 10/2009. In the second writ petition, the levy of damages and interest were made only after due notice. 11. Under Section 30(3) of EPF Act, it has been made clear that it is the responsibility of the principal employer to pay both the contribution payable by himself and in respect of the employees directly employed by him and also in respect of the employees employed through a Contractor and also administrative charges. 12. Mr.K.Kasthuri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported in 2000-II-LLJ 1606 [Motor Industries Co. Ltd. v. Regional P.F.Commissioner and another]for contending that there was no compulsion to pay 12% contribution over and above the amount for which ceiling on the coverage has been imposed. The said order was confirmed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in W.A.No.219/2001 dated 19.06.2001. 13. The learned Senior Counsel further referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2005) 6 SCC 106 [Union of India and others v. Narendar Singh]for contending that merely because an order of the Tribunal was given effect to, that cannot be a ground to deny the judicial review. 14. He further referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court arose under the ESI Act reported in (2008) 3 SCC 35 [Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. HMT Ltd. and another] wherein, the Supreme Court held that for levy of damages under the ESI Act, there must be mens rea involved and in the absence of any intentional delay, no damages can be leviable. 15. Per contra, the respondents relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2010 1 SCC 417 [Amarjeet Singh v. Devi Ratan] for contending that in the absence of challenge to a substantive order, consequential order cannot be subject matter of challenge. Reliance was placed on the following passages found in paragraphs 28 to 31:- "28. In the instant case, promotions had been made by two different DPCs held on 19-12-1998 and 22-1-1999. Both DPCs had made promotions under different Rules on different criterion and their promotions had been made with retrospective effect with different dates notionally. Reliance was placed on the following passages found in paragraphs 28 to 31:- "28. In the instant case, promotions had been made by two different DPCs held on 19-12-1998 and 22-1-1999. Both DPCs had made promotions under different Rules on different criterion and their promotions had been made with retrospective effect with different dates notionally. In the writ petition before the High Court, the promotion of the appellants had not been under challenge. The seniority which is consequential to the promotions could not be challenged without challenging the promotions. Challenging the consequential order without challenging the basic order is not permissible. (Vide P. Chitharanja Menon v. A. Balakrishnan15.) 29. In Roshan Lal v. International Airport Authority of India16 the petitions were primarily confined to the seniority list and this Court held that challenge to appointment orders could not be entertained because of inordinate delay and in absence of the same, validity of consequential seniority could not be examined. In such a case, a party is under a legal obligation to challenge the basic order and if and only if the same is found to be wrong, consequential orders may be examined. 30. In H.V. Pardasani v. Union of India17 this Court observed that: (SCC p. 473, para 9) “9. … If the petitioners are not able to establish that the determination of their seniority is wrong and they have been prejudiced by such adverse determination, their ultimate claim to promotion would, indeed, not succeed.” A similar view had been reiterated by this Court in Govt. of Maharashtra v. Deokar's Distillery18. 31. These appeals are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments. We are of the considered opinion that in absence of challenge to the promotion of the appellants, relief of quashing the consequential seniority list could not have been granted." 16. The contention raised by the respondents is well founded. The petitioner has not questioned the order passed under Section 7A of the EPF Act which gave rise to the levy of damages and interest. In the matter of levy of interest, there cannot be any private settlement. Even the judgment relied on by the petitioner namely HMT Case (cited supra) which arose under the ESI Act, cannot be mechanically interpreted. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the case of the petitioner Management. In the matter of levy of interest, there cannot be any private settlement. Even the judgment relied on by the petitioner namely HMT Case (cited supra) which arose under the ESI Act, cannot be mechanically interpreted. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the case of the petitioner Management. The second writ petition challenging the order directly before this Court without availing the benefit of appeal is also not maintainable. 17. In view of the above, both the writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.