Judgment Heard Shri Kholkar, learned Counsel, appearing for the Appellant. None for the Respondent, though served. 2. The above Appeal came to be admitted by Order dated 21.06.2006, on the following substantial question of law : "In the face of Regulations 31 and 31A of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950, if an employer commits default in paying contribution whether the E.S.I. Court has discretionary power to waive interest by bye-passing Regulation 31A? " 3. Shri Kholkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has assailed the impugned Order essentially on the ground that the learned E.S.I. Court whilst disposing of the application challenging an Order under Section 45A filed by the Respondent no.1, disposed of the application directing the Appellant to recover a specific amount of Rs.90,908/-withheld by the Bank and that the Appellant was not entitled to claim any further interest thereon. Learned Counsel has taken me through the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations 1950, and pointed out that under Regulation 31, there is a specific time limit whereby the employer has to deposit his contribution. Learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the Regulations 31-A and pointed out that in case of default of such payment, the employer is liable to pay interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum, Learned Counsel further pointed out that the E.S.I. Court has no powers or jurisdiction to waive such amount on statutory interest and, as such, the impugned Order passed by the E.S.I. Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2008 (8) S.C.C. 705 , in the case of Goetze (India) Limited vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation. The learned Counsel as such submits that the impugned Order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. The Respondent though served, failed to remain present at the time of the hearing of the above Appeal. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and I have also gone through the impugned Order as well as the relevant provisions of the said Regulations. On perusal of the Regulations 31 and 31A, Shri Kholkar, learned Counsel, is justified to contend that in case of default in payment of the contribution, the employer is liable to pay interest in terms of Section 31A of the said Regulations. On perusal of the Regulations 31 and 31A, Shri Kholkar, learned Counsel, is justified to contend that in case of default in payment of the contribution, the employer is liable to pay interest in terms of Section 31A of the said Regulations. On perusal of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation (supra), the Apex Court has categorically held that there is no power or waiver for making the payments of such statutory interest. In the present case, by passing the impugned Order, the E.S.I. Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and, inter alia, directed that the Appellant is not entitled to claim the interest. This part of the impugned Order cannot be sustained in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation (supra). The learned E.S.I. Court was, as such, not justified to pass such an Order and direct recovery of only Rs.90,908/-and that the claim of the Appellant stands accordingly satisfied. As such, the impugned Order cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside and E.S.I. Case No.5/2002 be directed to be decided afresh in accordance with law. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 6. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned Order dated 04.04.2005 is quashed and set aside. E.S.I. Case no.5/2002 is restored to the file of the learned E.S.I. Court, North Goa, at Panaji. (iii) The learned E.S.I Court, North Goa, Panaji, is directed to decide the said case afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. (iv) All the contentions of the parties on merits are left open. (v) The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs.