JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. The erstwhile Orissa State Electricity Board (in short ‘OSEB’) was constituted under the provisions of Section 5 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The employees working in the OSEB were coming under the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme. The OSEB and its divisions were paying the employees’ and employers’ share, as per the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “E.P.F. & M.P. Act, 1952”). Owing to delay in depositing the provident fund dues of the employees working in different divisions, payments were made through the headquarters office directly to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. On introduction of the pension regulation, namely, Orissa State Electricity Board Employees’ Pension (Including Old Age and Family Pension) Regulation, 1992 for its employees w.e.f. 01.04.1990, the OSEB was exempted from the purview of E.P.F. & M.P. Act, 1952 w.e.f. 01.04.1990. As there was delay in depositing the employees’ and employer’s share up to 01.04.1990 so far as employees working under the Puri Electrical Division are concerned, a notice was issued by the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner No.II, Orissa on 04.11.1992 to the petitioner to show cause why damages for the period from 1988-89 to 1990-91, as envisaged under Section 14-B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952, would not be recovered for causing 15 days delay in depositing the provident fund dues. On receipt of the said notice, records were verified and objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner denying the liability to pay the damages on the ground that provident fund dues were deposited by the OSEB headquarters office level and that the OSEB was exempted from the purview of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 w.e.f. 1.4.1990. After commencement of the Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, 1995 and Transfer Rules, 1998, the petitioner establishment has been transferred to CESCO w.e.f. 26.11.1998. Therefore, the petitioner establishment is not liable to pay damages. It was further stated that the initiation of proceeding under Section 14(1)(B) at a belated stage cannot sustain in the eye of law. After commencement of the Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, 1995 and Transfer Rules, 1998, the petitioner establishment has been transferred to CESCO w.e.f. 26.11.1998. Therefore, the petitioner establishment is not liable to pay damages. It was further stated that the initiation of proceeding under Section 14(1)(B) at a belated stage cannot sustain in the eye of law. Further, as per the provisions contained under Section 209 (4) of the Companies Act, 1956, a company is required to preserve books of account and maintain other records for a period of 8 years preceding the current year and, as such, GRIDCO was liable for such delay in remitting the amount and the petitioner is no way connected with the deposit made by the GRIDCO during the period in question. Without considering the objection and the stand taken therein by the petitioner, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner passed the order impugned on 20.03.1998 imposing penalty for an amount of Rs.2,74,828/-. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred OJC No.15744 of 1998 and this Court by order dated 04.05.2005 disposed of the said writ application by setting aside the order of assessment made under Section 14-B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and remitted the matter back to the said authority to reassess the damages. Consequentially, the authority issued notice to the petitioner to appear on 06.06.2005. In response to the same, the petitioner filed note of submission and submitted that after 01.04.1990, the Commissioner is not competent to levy any damages due to introduction of the pensionary scheme. It was further submitted in the note of submission that the Commissioner may decide the matter keeping in view the ratio decided in M/s Bhubaneswar City Distribution v. Union of India, 85 (1998) CLT 198. It was submitted that the delay in remittance of the provident fund dues was caused due to delay in transit by the bank and if the said transit period was excluded, there would be hardly delay of 1 to 7 days for different periods. After due adjudication, even though the Commissioner, by order dated 30.12.2005, reduced the rate of interest to 17%, enhanced the dues to Rs.2,91,659/-. After due adjudication, even though the Commissioner, by order dated 30.12.2005, reduced the rate of interest to 17%, enhanced the dues to Rs.2,91,659/-. Challenging the said order dated 30.12.2005, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 7(i) of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which was registered as Appeal No.220 (10) of 2006. The appellate authority, although granted interim stay, ultimately by order dated 21.01.2010 came to hold that the petitioner was liable to pay penalty and interest for the period from 1989 to 01.03.1990 and allowed the appeal in part by remitting the same to the provident fund authority for recalculation of the penalty. Hence this application. 2. Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the Commissioner has imposed penalty without considering the fact that after long lapse of 14 years notice was issued under Section 14-B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 for the alleged default committed during the period 198889 to 1990-91 without assigning any reason whatsoever. Therefore, the very initiation of proceeding at belated stage, cannot sustain in the eye of law. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in M/s Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and another v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Orissa Sub Regional Office, Rourkela, 1995 (1) OLR 116. It is further contended that in view of the provisions contained under Section 14-B of the Act, where an employer makes default in payment of any contribution, the Commissioner may recover the same by way of penalty for such damages. If the employer furnishes sufficient cause for delay, the authority in a given case may not levy damages in view of the ratio decided by this Court in M/s. Bhubaneswar City Distribution Division v. Union of India and another, 85 (1998) CLT 198. 3. Mr. S.S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party-Provident Fund Commissioner strenuously urged that exemption of OSEB from the purview of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 w.e.f. 01.04.1990 has been admitted and, accordingly, a speaking order has been passed under Section 14-B of the Act and levy has been done during the period from 1989 to 01.03.1990. 3. Mr. S.S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party-Provident Fund Commissioner strenuously urged that exemption of OSEB from the purview of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 w.e.f. 01.04.1990 has been admitted and, accordingly, a speaking order has been passed under Section 14-B of the Act and levy has been done during the period from 1989 to 01.03.1990. It is stated that the appellate tribunal by the impugned order has remitted the matter back to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for recalculation and, as such, no fault can be found with the same. It is further contended that the delay in levying the damages does not amount to waiver of rights nor the proceeding is vitiated on account of delay or laches. The amount of assessment is not affected by the delay in proceeding rather it depends upon in making default in payment and delay in remittance of dues by the employer. As per Section 17-B of the Act, in case of transfer of establishment, the employer to whom the establishment is transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the contribution and other dues under the provisions of the scheme. The imposition of penalty having been done by giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner establishment after prolonged inquiry, the order so passed by the authority is wholly and fully justified, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in M/s Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1998 SC 668 . 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records, since pleadings between the parties have been exchanged, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 5. Undisputedly, notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 14-B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 calling upon it to show cause why penalty would not be imposed for delay in depositing the provident fund dues for the period from 1988-89 to 1990-91. The petitioner also submitted its reply and raised question with regard to the delay in initiation of proceeding and more so the delay in remittance of the provident fund dues is not attributable to it because of the reason that the delay was caused by the bank in transit. The petitioner also submitted its reply and raised question with regard to the delay in initiation of proceeding and more so the delay in remittance of the provident fund dues is not attributable to it because of the reason that the delay was caused by the bank in transit. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is not liable for any penalty. Though the petitioner was called upon to produce the relevant documents, it is contended that after reorganization, the petitioner establishment came under the control of the GRIDCO and thereafter under CESCO, therefore the old records were not available, which itself entitled the petitioner to get waiver of the penalty under Section 14-B of the Act. 6. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, it is worthwhile to go through Section 14-B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952, which reads thus:- “14B. Power to recover damages -Where an employer makes default in the payment of any contribution to the Fund the Pension Fund or the Insurance Fund or in the transfer of accumulations required to be transferred by him under sub-section 2 of section 15 or subsection 5 of section 17 or in the payment of any charges payable under any other provision of this Act or of any Scheme or Insurance Scheme or under any of the conditions specified under section 17, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such other officer as may be authorized by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, in this behalf may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages, not exceeding the amount of arrears, as may be specified in the Scheme. Provided that before levying and recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Provided further that the Central Board may reduce or waive the damages levied under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company and in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in the Scheme.” 7. On perusal of the aforementioned provisions, it appears that it does not provide any limitation for initiation of proceeding for levy of damages. On perusal of the aforementioned provisions, it appears that it does not provide any limitation for initiation of proceeding for levy of damages. Even though statute does not provide for any limitation, it has been held in several decisions of the apex Court, as well as this Court that power should be exercised within a reasonable period. 8. In Mansoram v. B.P. Pathak and others, AIR 1983 SC 1239 , the apex Court clearly observed that when the power is conferred to effectuate a purpose, it has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and exercise of power in a reasonable manner inheres the concept of its exercise within a reasonable time. Therefore, the observation of the apex Court will apply in all force in respect of exercise of power by the authority under a statute where no limitation has been prescribed. 9. So far as applicability of the ratio decided in Hindustan Times Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the apex Court held that the authority under Section 14-B has to apply its mind to the facts of the case and the reply to the show cause notice and pass a reasoned order after following principles of natural justice and giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner usually takes into consideration the number of defaults, the period of delay, the frequency of default and the amounts involved; default on the part of the employer based on plea of power-cut, financial problems relating to other indebtedness or the delay in realization of amounts paid by the cheques or drafts, cannot be justifiable grounds for the employer to escape liability; there is no period of limitation prescribed by the legislature for initiating action for recovery of damage under Section 14-B. 10. In Cambridge School v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhubaneswar, 2015 (1) OLR 971 , this Court had also taken into consideration the judgment of the apex Court in Hindustan Time Ltd. (supra) and observed that the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the provisions of EPF & MP Act, 1952 and there is no bar on the part of the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner to impose default damages under Section 14-B for the simple reason that the employees’ contribution having been deducted by the employer, it should have been immediately remitted to the Provident Fund Commissioner account and instead of remitting the same if the same is utilized for the purpose other than the purpose for which it has been deducted, then the Commissioner is empowered under the statute to impose penal damages to secure and ensure the deposit of the employee’s share to the Commissioner within a reasonable time. If the factual matrix of the case in hand would be taken into consideration in consonance with the judgments of the apex Court in Hindustan Times Ltd. as well as Cambridge School (supra), as discussed above, the same does not come within the ambit of the ratio decided in the said cases. 11. In Bhubaneswar City Distribution Division (supra), while considering the contention no.(iii), this Court observed as follows: “Contention No. (iii) – Section 14-B of the Act clearly provides that where an employer makes default in the payment of any contribution required under the Act, the Commissioner may recover from the employer by way of penalty of such damages provided that before levying and recovering of such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A bare reading of the provision would indicate that delayed payment of the statutory dues as it had occurred in the present case, does not ipso-facto invite levy of damages. If the employer furnishes sufficient cause for the delay, the designated authority in a given case may not levy damages. In the impugned order, the Commissioner in paragraph-5 has observed “that the establishment had defaulted in payment of statutory dues without any valid reason”. 12. If the employer furnishes sufficient cause for the delay, the designated authority in a given case may not levy damages. In the impugned order, the Commissioner in paragraph-5 has observed “that the establishment had defaulted in payment of statutory dues without any valid reason”. 12. On receipt of notice to show cause, when the petitioner submitted its explanation and raised preliminary objection with regard to imposition of penal damages by initiating proceeding at a belated stage and without assigning reasons for delay in such initiation, no explanation has been submitted by the authority concerned. Apart from the same, when the same question was raised before the appellate tribunal, the same has not been answered, rather in appeal the period for which the penalty has been imposed, i.e., for the period from 1988-89 to 1990-91, the same was reduced to 1988-89 to 01.03.1990 and also the matter was remitted back to the Provident Fund Commissioner for re-determination of liability without assigning any explanation for delay in initiation of proceeding by the Commissioner. Therefore, the ratio decided by this Court in Mansoram and Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. mentioned supra is squarely applicable to the present context. 13. In the above view of the matter, the order dated 21.01.2010 in Annexure-2 passed by the appellate tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner with the direction to reassess the damages under Section 14-B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 taking into consideration the ratio decided by this Court in Mansoram and Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd., as referred to above, and pass a speaking and reasoned order justifying the imposition of penalty in accordance with law. 14. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.