JUDGMENT : K. Harilal, J. The petitioner herein, is running an unaided Higher Secondary School under the State syllabus. The petitioner is also an employer under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the petitioner, the petitioner received Ext.P1 order, directing to pay damages for the delayed payment for the period from 03/1997 to 05/2004, totalling to a sum of Rs. 1,34,093/-. Similarly, the petitioner received Ext.P2 order, which was passed under Section 7Q of the Act, directing him to pay interest for the delayed payment for the period from 03/1997 to 05/2004, totalling to a sum of Rs. 73,613/-. The petitioner contends that there was no wilful delay, on the part of the petitioner in remitting employees' contribution. There was a dispute with regard to the salaries of the employees and the matter was pending before this Court, in O.P. No.9342/1999, which culminated in Ext.P3 judgment. Challenging Ext.P3 judgment, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.582/2002, which culminated in Ext.P4 judgment. Thereafter, the employees of the petitioner preferred Contempt Case No.4043/2003, which was closed by Ext.P5 judgment. 2. In short, according to the petitioner, there was a bona fide dispute, as regards the quantum of salary to be paid to the employees of the petitioner. Exts.P3 to P5, clearly shows that there was no wilful default on the part of the petitioner, for remitting the contribution amount. The petitioner institution has been making provident fund contributions, since 1998 regularly, including the period from 03/1997 to 05/2004 and the same is evidenced, by Exts.P6 to P6 (6), as such the delay alleged by the 1st respondent is only in respect of the enhanced salary, which was paid subsequently, in the year 2004, after the disposal of Ext.P5 Contempt Case. It is also admitted that the petitioner institution received Ext.P7 notice, on 17.05.2004 and in response to Ext.P7, the petitioner paid the amount quantified in Ext.P7 on 07.07.2004. Thus, there was no inordinate or wilful delay, in remitting the contribution payable to the arrear of salary, as the arrear of salary, itself was paid, after the disposal of Ext.P5 Contempt of Court Case, on 12.03.2004. But, neither the 1st respondent nor the 3rd respondent has considered the circumstances under which the short delay was caused, in remitting the contribution for the arrear of salary, to the employees. 3. But, neither the 1st respondent nor the 3rd respondent has considered the circumstances under which the short delay was caused, in remitting the contribution for the arrear of salary, to the employees. 3. Aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P2 orders, pursuant to the direction of this Court in the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.36480 of 2008, the petitioner preferred statutory appeals Exts.P10 and P11, before the 3rd respondent. But, the 3rd respondent also has not considered the question, whether there was any wilful default on the part of the petitioner, causing the delay, in remitting the employees' contribution payable for the arrear of salary. The 3rd respondent passed Exts.P12 and P13 orders, without application of mind, by making arithmetical calculation only. It is with this averments, this writ petition is filed, challenging Exts.P1 and P2 orders, passed by the 1st respondent and Exts.P12 and P13 orders passed by the 3rd respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments, assailing the findings in Exts.P1, P2, P12 and P13, whereby, the petitioner was found liable to pay damages and interest for the alleged delayed payment of contribution, for the arrear of salary paid to the employees of the petitioner. The thrust of the argument is that neither the 1st respondent nor the 3rd respondent applied their mind over the circumstance or reason, whereby a short delay was caused, in remitting the contribution for the arrear of salary paid to the employees. According to the learned counsel, the claim of damages and interest for a period from 03/1997 to 05/2004 is illegal and unsustainable, in view of Ext.P5, which shows that the arrear of salary was paid only after 12.03.2004. 6. Per contra, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent advanced arguments, to justify the determination of damage and interest under Exts.P1 and Ext.P2 respectively. According to the learned standing counsel, there was an inordinate delay in paying arrear of salary from 1997 to 2004 and the petitioner, as an employer was liable to pay contribution for the said arrear of salary from 1997 onwards, though, the petitioner has not paid the said amount to the employees. In other words, the petitioner was liable to pay contribution then and there, from 1997 onwards, though, the petitioner has not paid that amount to the employees. In other words, the petitioner was liable to pay contribution then and there, from 1997 onwards, though, the petitioner has not paid that amount to the employees. Thus, the 1st respondent can be justified in calculating the damages for a period from 1997 onwards. It was also contended that the 1st and 3rd respondents have considered the entire circumstances under which the petitioner caused inordinate delay in remitting the contribution for the arrear of salary paid to the employees. 7. In view of the rival submissions, the question to be considered is, whether the 1st respondent is justified in finding that the petitioner is liable to pay damages and interest, for the delay in remitting the contribution for the arrear of salary paid to the employees from 1997. 8. In Ext.P7, it is stated that a complaint has been received in the Office of the 1st respondent stating that though the petitioner had paid arrear of wages to the employees working in the school, as per the directions of this Court in W.A.No. 582/2000 dated 20/10/2003, the P.F. contribution on the arrear have not been remitted. It is the case of the petitioner also that the petitioner/institution has been making P.F. contributions since 1982 regularly, including the period from 3/1997 to 5/2004 and the said remittance is evidenced by Exts.P6 to P6(6) series. As such, the delay alleged by the 1st respondent is only in respect of the enhanced salary. Thus, on a combined analysis of Exts.P6 to P6(6) series and P7, it can be held that the enhanced salary referred to by the petitioner is the arrear of salary referred to by the 1st respondent in Ext.P7. In the above view, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner has been making P.F. contributions regularly for the period including from 3/1997 to 5/2004. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no wilful default or negligence in causing delay in remitting the employees' contribution, as the enhanced salary was under dispute and pending before this Court under Exts.P3 to P5 for a period from 1997 to 2004 and the arrear of salary was paid after Ext.P5 judgment dated 12/3/2004. Therefore, no kind of wilful negligence or default can be attributed for the delay in remitting the contributions for the enhanced salary. Therefore, no kind of wilful negligence or default can be attributed for the delay in remitting the contributions for the enhanced salary. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to Ext.P7 dated 17/5/2004, the petitioner had paid the employees' contribution for the arrear of salary along with Ext.P8 covering letter dated 7/7/2004. In view of the dates referred above, there is a delay of around 3 months in remitting the employees' contribution after the disposal of Ext.P5 judgment. Going by Exts.P1 and P2, it is seen that the 1st respondent had found that the petitioner is liable to pay damages and interest for the period from 3/1997 to 5/2004. But neither under Ext.P1 nor under Ext.P2 there is no reasoning as to how the 1st respondent has claimed the damages and interest for the said period. What was the basis for such a claim for a long period, particularly when the arrear of salary was paid in March, 2004 and the employees' contribution was remitted for the arrear of salary on 7/7/2004. This Court finds that the 1st respondent miserably failed to substantiate the claim of damages and interest for a period from 3/1997 to 5/2004. 9. Going by Exts.P3, P4 and P5, it is seen that the petitioner had a bona fide contention that the petitioner/Institution is not liable to pay the enhanced salary as claimed by the teachers, though this Court concurrently rejected the said contention. 10. Going by Exts.P1 and P2, it can be seen that the 1st respondent has not made any attempt to consider the circumstances under Exts.P3 to P5 which caused delay in remitting the monthly remittance. In other wards, the 1st respondent has not applied his mind to consider the question whether there was any wilful negligence or default in causing the delay in remitting the arrear of salary. 11. At this juncture, the decision reported in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 2012 (2) KLT SN 74 (C.No.72), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, assumes significance as well as relevance. 11. At this juncture, the decision reported in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 2012 (2) KLT SN 74 (C.No.72), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, assumes significance as well as relevance. The relevant portion which is applicable to the instant case is extracted below: "Therefore, I am of opinion that merely because there is delay in payment of contributions, liability to pay damages does not arise automatically, but the same shall be decided by applying mind objectively to the merits of each case and not by resorting to mere arithmetic calculation of damages as per a structured formula. Even though liability to pay contributions is statutory, to hold that delay automatically attracts a certain percentage as damages would be too rigid a way of construing the relevant provisions of the Act and the Scheme, especially since the imposition of damages is punitive in nature. There must be application of mind taking into account the reasons for delay and whether the delay could have been avoided by ordinary diligence by the employer. For this, one cannot with any amount of certainty lay down the circumstances, which would mitigate the damages and which would not. The same would differ from case to case, which requires exercise of judicial discretion by the authority imposing damages, by objective application of mind to the circumstances pleaded and proved by the employer. x x x x x x x In the context of deciding the question whether there is any contumacious conduct on the part of the petitioner in delaying payment of contributions, the past and future conduct of the petitioner in the matter of payment of contributions is certainly a very relevant consideration. The facts that for the past the petitioner was prompt in payment of contributions and for the current periods the petitioner is prompt in payment are certainly factors which should go into the question of quantification of damages under Section 14B. The decision of the Commissioner that 'the track record of the establishment in making payments in time in the previous periods may not absolve the employer from levying damages for the defaulted period', therefore, is incorrect". 12. The decision of the Commissioner that 'the track record of the establishment in making payments in time in the previous periods may not absolve the employer from levying damages for the defaulted period', therefore, is incorrect". 12. In view of the above decision, I find that this is a fit case wherein the 1st respondent ought to have considered the circumstances under which there occurred some delay in remitting the contribution for the arrear of salary paid to the employees. In Ext.P1 order passed by the 1st respondent, to recover the damages and interest without considering Exts.P3 to P6 are unreasonable and arbitrary and the same caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The determination of damages under Section 14B is not a mechanical process. Where there is a delay in remitting the contribution, the authority should have considered the entire circumstances by which the delay occurred. The determination of damages is not an inflexible application of a rigid formula, as done by the petitioner. The authority is required to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances, which caused delay. 13. In the above analysis, I find that it is incumbent upon the 1st respondent to consider the questions whether there is any wilful default or negligence in causing the delay which would warrant levying damages and interest under Sections 14B and 7Q; whether the petitioner is liable to pay damages and interest for the delay of the period from 3/1997 to 5/2004 in view of Exts.P3, P4, P5, P7 and P8 and whether the petitioner is liable to pay damage and interest for the delay in remitting contribution for the arrear of salary caused by enhancement of salary for a period from 3/1997 to 5/2004, when the said arrear of salary caused by enhancement of salary was paid to the employees after Ext.P5 judgment dated 12/3/2004 only. 14. Going by Exts.P12 and P13, it is seen that the 3rd respondent has not considered any of the matters and issues which are referred above and simply upheld the findings of the 1st respondent in a mechanical way. In short, the damages and interest are seen calculated arithmetically without application of mind in Exts.P12 and P13 also. 15. Consequently, Exts.P1, P2, P12 and P13 are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. 16. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.