JUDGMENT : K. Vinod Chandran, J. The Provident Fund Organization challenges the judgment in the writ petition on the ground that there has been absolutely no consideration on the question of imposition of damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [for brevity "EPF&MP Act"]. 2. The period in which admittedly the PF contributions were defaulted, was between April 1996 to November 1997; though in the order it is seen as till August 1998. The respondent-establishment claimed before the Provident Fund Commissioner that there was financial constraints and that alone led to the delay in making the contributions. The learned Counsel for the establishment also took us through the order of the original authority at Exhibit P10, wherein the authority had considered the contention of the establishment and found that the establishment is entitled to sympathetic consideration. But, even then finding that the loss of interest has to be compensated, the damages were levied at the maximum statutory limit prescribed. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Organization submits that Section 14B damages was compensatory till 01.07.1997, when Section 7Q interest was inserted by Act 33 of 1988 with effect from 01.07.1997. 4. We see from the Tribunal's order that the Tribunal has considered the contention of the establishment of financial constraints. It was found that there was nothing produced to indicate that the establishment was in financial doldrums between April 1996 to November 1997. The establishment's contention as on the date of the order was that they were on lay-off from 2001. The learned Counsel for the respondent-establishment would submit that the industry was declared sick in the year 1991 and the financial constraints over the years led to lay-off in the year 2001. 5. We would caution ourselves that we are on judicial review and not reappreciating the facts as in an appeal from the Tribunal's order. We do not find any financial constraints established by the respondent/establishment between the period April 1996 to November 1997, but for the fact that the respondent had been declared a sick industry. We also notice that till Section 7Q interest came into the enactment, Section 14B damages also took in the compensatory aspect. There is admittedly delay in payment and when damages are to be levied, it has to be on the basis of the statutory scale prescribed. 6. We also notice that till Section 7Q interest came into the enactment, Section 14B damages also took in the compensatory aspect. There is admittedly delay in payment and when damages are to be levied, it has to be on the basis of the statutory scale prescribed. 6. We refer to the Division Bench decision of this Court in EPF Organisation v. Sreekamakshy Agency, 2013 2 KHC 773 (DB) and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., (2013) 3 KLT 790 (DB) but do not find the ratio applicable in the facts of the case, especially since there is no financial constraints established by the establishment and the dictum being applicable only after the amendments in 2007, which inter alia introduced Section 7Q. The Division Bench held that there is discretion on the authority to decide as to whether the imposition of penalty is to be done or not and also decide the quantum of penalty subject to the maximum as indicated in the sliding table under the Scheme after the amendment. Financial difficulties also could be a mitigating circumstance, but here there is no evidence proffered and is for a period prior to Section 7Q. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge erred in limiting penalty to half of what was proposed. We set aside the judgment and restore the order of the Organization. The Writ Appeal is allowed, giving time to the respondent/establishment to make deposit within a period of three months from today without any further interest, if at all any as imposed by the statute, subject to the deposit being made within that time. No Costs.