JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is made to an order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi exercising its power u/s 7(I) read with Section 7(L) of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Act, 1952. In the matter of assessment of damages and interest under Sections 14(B) and 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Act, 1952, as the Appellate Tribunal has restricted the damages and interest to 50%, the department feels aggrieved and this petition has been filed. 2. Facts in nut-shell goes to show that the respondent-Institute is an education institute and carries out educational activities. It is a grant-in aid institute and was receiving grant from the State of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of payment of salary and allowances to the Teachers. 3. In the State of Madhya Pradesh the payment of grant was controlled by the provisions of the M.P. Ashashaskiya Shikshan Sans than (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Kar Sandaya) Adhiniyam and the payment of salary contributions to the Provident Fund etc. were governed by the statutory rules and the scheme framed under the aforesaid Act. 4. The dispute with regard to payment of Provident fund dues by the educational institute and the liability of the educational institute was pending consideration before various forums and as far as State of M.P. is concerned, the matter was resolved by the Supreme Court after a judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Shikshak Congress and Others Vs. R.P.F. Commissioner, Jabalpur and Others, (1999) 1 SCC 396 . It is seen that after the matter was so settled, the Provident Fund Organization initiated recovery proceedings against the respondent institute in the matter of payment of P.F. dues for the period from August 1982 to September, 2002 and finally after conducting the proceedings u/s 7-A, the dues were determined. However, after determination of the Provident Fund dues in a proceeding held u/s 7-A further proceedings were initiated under Sections 14-B and 7Q for recovery of damages and interest on the late payment made and an order was passed by the Provident Fund Authorities on 26.10.2007 vide Annexure P/3 and a total damages of Rs. 16,42,462/- was imposed u/s 14-B and an interest of Rs. 2,66,994/- was imposed u/s 7Q. 16,42,462/- was imposed u/s 14-B and an interest of Rs. 2,66,994/- was imposed u/s 7Q. Accordingly, a total recovery ordered under the provisions of Section 14-B read with para. 32A of the Scheme was Rs. 19,09,456/-. Challenging this imposition of damages and interest, it seems that respondent institute filed a writ petition before this Court and by an order passed on 16.5.2008 in W.P. No. 6169/2008 the petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount and thereafter, prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was preferred and the appeal having been partly allowed and recovery of damages and interest having been restricted to 50% already deposited, the department has filed this writ petition. It is the case of the department that recovery of damages u/s 14B read with para. 32A of the scheme is a statutory provision and once default is established, there is no provision for reducing the amount of interest and penalty. Contending that u/s 14B read with para. 32A of the scheme there is no provision for recover reduction of penalty amount, the writ petition is filed. 5. On the contrary, respondent submits that the reduction in amount of damages and interest is permissible and placing reliance on various judgments of Supreme Court and this Court, Shri Vivek Rusia tried to implicate that damages to the extent of 25% has also been imposed by the Courts in various circumstances. It is emphasized that in the present case, the institute was receiving grant-in aid and as per rules framed under the M.P. Ashashaskiya Shikshan Sansthan (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Kar Sandaya) Adhiniyam, certain amounts deposited in the Bank on the joint account on the Institutional fund and as there is no deliberate or intentional breach, the discretion exercised by the Tribunal be not interfered. In support of rival contentions of both the parties, reliance is made on the following judgments Halwasia Vidya Vihar (Sr. Sec. School) Haryana Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2006) 4 SCC 46 ; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School and Others, (2007) 1 SCC 268 , and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. S.D. College, Hoshiarpur and others, (1997) 1 SCC 241 . 6. We have considered the rival contentions and taken note of the judgments relied upon. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2006) 4 SCC 46 ; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School and Others, (2007) 1 SCC 268 , and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. S.D. College, Hoshiarpur and others, (1997) 1 SCC 241 . 6. We have considered the rival contentions and taken note of the judgments relied upon. The main thrust of argument of Shri J.K. Pillai was that u/s 14B there is no provision for waiver of damages and the only power to reduce the damages or waive is with the Central Board and by reducing the penalty it is argued that the Tribunal has committed an error. 7. If the provisions of Section 14B is taken note of it would be seen that this Section contemplates a provision where damages can be imposed in certain cases. However, second proviso to the said Section contemplates that the Central Board may reduce or waive the damages. Similarly in para. 32A of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Act, 1952, also there is a provision for imposition of damages and statutory scheme for calculation of damages. In this also the damages found to be paid as per the aforesaid provision and the rate contemplated therein and the power with the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such Officer as may be authorized by the Government. The question is as to whether in view of the aforesaid statutory provision, the Tribunal can exercise the powers of reduction or waiver. 8. In our considered view, the contention of the department cannot be accepted. The statutory restriction in the matter of permitting reduction or waiver as is contemplated in the provisions of Section 14B and the scheme is a restriction imposed upon the departmental authorities who conduct the proceedings but in a given set of circumstances a judicial or a quasi judicial authority or a Tribunal exercising powers have the right to modify the order in the interest of justice. The Appellate Tribunal exercises its powers u/s 7-L and the provisions of 7L of the Act of 1952 contemplates that a Tribunal may after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned in an appeal may pass such orders thereof as it deems fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against or may refer the matter to the authority for reconsideration. The power available to the Tribunal u/s 7-L clearly shows that it has the power of modifying any order passed by the authority in which an appeal is filed and if in a given set of circumstances, the Tribunal feels that the amount of damages can be reduced or waived, we see no reason as to why the Tribunal cannot exercise this discretion and waive the power. Taking note of the aforesaid, we find no ground to interfere into the matter as the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case exercised its discretion in the matter of reducing the damages and interest to 50% and having exercised its discretion in a sound and reasonable manner, there is no case made out for interfering with this discretion. 9. That apart, the material available on record does not show that the institute has committed any deliberate omission, the circumstances explained by the institute do show that some justification has been given for the same. That apart, in various other institutes in me State of M.P. reduction in the quantum of damages have been granted. 10. Taking note of all these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere into the discretion exercised by the Tribunal. The petition is therefore, dismissed.