ORDER : Shantanu Kemkar, J. By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.11.2006 passed by Assistant Provident Fund, Commissioner by which damages u/s 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the Act of 1952) have been levelled upon the petitioner as also the order dated 02.12.2010 (Annexure P5) passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) in ATA No. 74 (8)/2009 by which the appellant's appeal has been dismissed. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while deciding the question of levy of damages both the authorities have failed to consider the fact that there was sufficient cause for the petitioner for delay in payment of contribution. According to the petitioner, the authorities had failed to consider that for belated remittance of provident fund dues liability to pay the damages is not automatic but it has to be decided by the authorities by applying mind to the merits of the case and there cannot be any straight jacket formula for calculation of the damages. In support learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Bhubaneswar City Distribution Division Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, and M/s The Reliable Water Supply Service of India (P) Ltd. (1973) 26 FLR 389. 3. The respondent has filed reply and has supported the orders passed by both the authorities. It is the case of the respondent that a show cause notice dated 28.09.2006 was issued to the petitioner. The said show cause notice was duly supported with the statement of default/delay committed by the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not file any reply to the said show cause notice. On the other hand during the course of the personal hearing the representative of the respondent who appeared before the Commissioner, after verification of the record of petitioner submitted that he has verified the damages statement with the record of the petitioner company and found it to be correct. Thereafter, the Commissioner passed the order dated 29.11.2006 levying the damages to the extent as mentioned in the order. Thereafter, the Commissioner passed the order dated 29.11.2006 levying the damages to the extent as mentioned in the order. In the appeal filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal dealt with the matter exhaustively and after considering the petitioner's explanation for the delay that delay occurred due to financial problem, declined to interfere in the order passed by the Commissioner. 4. Having gone through the impugned orders and after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the petition has no merit. 5. In the case of Bhuwaneshwar City Distribution Division v. Union of India and another, (supra), the Orissa High Court and in the case of M/s Reliable Water Supply Service of India (P) Ltd., Lucknow v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow and others (supra) the Allahabad High Court have held that u/s 14B the State Government has to make an order assessing the damages after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The powers u/s 14B cannot be characterised as conferring an arbitrary or an unguided power on the appropriate Government. In the present case a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner of which no reply was filed by the petitioner. The representative of the petitioner appeared and admitted about the delay shown in the chart. He did not offer any explanation for the said delay. In the circumstances, the Commissioner levied the damages. The Tribunal considered the explanation offered by the petitioner for the first time before it but did not consider it to be sufficient to reduce the damages and in our considered view rightly so. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to under which provision the explanation for delay of payment of amount due to financial difficulties as offered by the petitioner, could have been a ground to reduce to the penalty. 6. In the circumstances, in our considered view no case is made out to interfere in the order passed by the Commissioner and the Tribunal. The petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No orders as to the costs.