ORDER Menon, J. -- 1. Challenging the legality of an order dated 10.1.2008 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ATA No.586(8)/2004, this petition has been filed by the Provident Fund Commissioner. 2. Matter pertains to imposition of damages and interest under section 14B read with section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to the tune of Rs.97,81,478/-. 3. A notification was issued by the competent authority on 19.10.1990 extending the liability of making payment of Provident Fund on various establishments like the respondent. The same as challenged before the High Court and the High Court stayed implementation of the notification dated 19.10.1990. Ultimately the petition filed was dismissed and the SLP was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. As a result the respondent establishment was required to pay the contribution towards provident fund for the period November 1990 to April 1998. This amount was determined at Rs.92,99,011/- along with certain additional amount of Rs.15,72,788/-. As far as determination of this amount is concerned, there is no dispute, however, on account of the fact that the provisions of the Act was made applicable from 19.10.1998 and there is a delay in payment of contribution, proceedings were initiated under section 14B and interest under section 7Q of the Act. The respondent establishment came out with a case that as there was an interim stay by the High Court with regard to the implementation of the notification dated 19.10.1998, damages and interest cannot be claimed as the establishment has not deliberately refused to pay the contribution. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner rejected the aforesaid contention and vide order Annexure P-1 dated 30th June, 2004 imposed damages and penalty to the tune of Rs.97,81,478/-. Challenging the same appeal was filed before the appellate Tribunal and by the impugned order the appellate Tribunal found that as operation of the notification dated 19.10.1990 was stayed by the High Court, damages and interest could not be imposed and having allowed the appeal of the respondent, this writ petition by the establishment. 4. We find that identical question with regard to imposition of damages and penalty in the matter has already been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5543/2010 M/s. Vrijlal Manilal and Co. 4. We find that identical question with regard to imposition of damages and penalty in the matter has already been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5543/2010 M/s. Vrijlal Manilal and Co. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and by a detailed order passed on 18.12.2012 not only the aforesaid case of M/s. Vrijlal Manilal and Co. (supra), but various other cases both filed by the establishment and the Provident Fund Organization have been decided and the question has been determined by the learned Bench in the following manner : 15. Admittedly with the issuance of Notification dated 19.10.1990 liability of employer to remit the contribution in respect of classes of employees as per Paragraph 26 of EPF Scheme arose w.e.f 1.11.1990. The stay of operation of the notification by the High Court and Supreme Court did not absolve the employer from such liability. The liability though differed; however, the failure of challenge reincarnated the liability which leads to revival of the statutory liability such as damages by way of penalty. In State of M.P. v. M.V. Vyavsaya and Company [ (1997)1 SCC 156 ], it has been held by the Supreme Court that : 15. ..... This Court has also repeatedly emphasised the inadvisability of making interim orders which have the effect of depriving the State [the people of the State] of the revenues legitimately due to it. The Court should not take upon itself the responsibility of staying the recovery of amounts due to State unless a clear case of illegality is made out and the balance of convenience is duly considered. Otherwise, the odium of unlawfully depriving the State/the people of the monies lawfully due to it/them would lie upon the Court. ......" 19. ........... It is the duty of the Court to try to repair the damage to the extent possible. No one should be allowed to suffer on account of the act(s) of the Court......." 16. In Style (Dress land) v. Union Territory, Chandigarh [ (1999)7 SCC 89 ] it has been held : 15. .....It is a settled principle of law that as and when a party applies and obtain a stay from the Court of Law, it is always at a risk and responsibility of the party applying. In Style (Dress land) v. Union Territory, Chandigarh [ (1999)7 SCC 89 ] it has been held : 15. .....It is a settled principle of law that as and when a party applies and obtain a stay from the Court of Law, it is always at a risk and responsibility of the party applying. Mere passing of an order of stay cannot be presumed to be conferment of any additional right upon the litigating party........" (Please also see Rajasthan Housing Board and others v. Krishna Kumari [ (2005)13 SCC 151 ]. 17. In view whereof the employer/establishment cannot be absolved from the damages by way of penalty. But how much damage they would be liable for? Since there was a stay of operation of notification dated 19.10.1990, the employer establishment, therefore, cannot be made to suffer wholly, equity has to be balanced. As per Paragraph 32 (A) (d) of EPF Scheme, 1952 in respect of period of default is six months and above, the rate of damages is 37% of arrears per annum. In the given facts of present case 18 % of arrears per annum towards rate of damages would meet the ends of justice. 18. The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the employer/establishment would be liable to pay the penalty by way of damages @ 18% per annum the arrears of the contribution for the period of delay in payment. 19. In the result, whereas Writ Petition No. 5543/2010 is dismissed. Writ Petitions No.11347/2009, 11348/2009, 11349/2009, 11350/2009, 11368/2009 and 11369/2009 are partly allowed to the extent above. No costs. 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the impugned order of the Tribunal is also modified to the extent as quoted herein above in paragraph 18 of the order passed on 18.12.2012 in Writ Petition No.5543/2010, the present petition is allowed and disposed of in identical terms. No order as to costs.