JUDGMENT : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.03.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A.T.A.No.659 (13) 2002. 2. The brief facts leading to the filling of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madurai. It is the case of the petitioner that the office of the petitioner passed an order dated 28.09.1992, levying damages on the second respondent under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (herein after referred to as case). Aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.1992, the second respondent preferred an appeal before the first respondent in A.T.A.No.659 (13) 2002. The first respondent passed the impugned order dated 03.03.2009, restricting the damages to 15% per annum. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2009 in A.T.A.No.659 (13) 2002, passed by the first respondent, the writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard Mr. K. Murali Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Chandra Bose, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent failed to take note of the fact that amendment has been made to Section 14B of the Act, with effect from 26.09.2008. According to him, the damages imposed on the second respondent under Section 14B of the Act cannot be revised by the first respondent, in view of the amendment under Section 14B, which came into force with effect from 26.09.2008. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner does not have the power to reduce damages under Section 14B r/w Section 32 A and 32 B of Employees Provident Fund Schemes, 1952. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that gross reduction in the levy of damages will have an adverse impact on the Provident Fund Schemes. According to him, unless the provident Fund is maintained intact, there is every chance that it will be depleted, causing irreparable loss and hardship to workmen employed by the second respondent. 5. Section 14(B) of the Act reads as follows: “14B. According to him, unless the provident Fund is maintained intact, there is every chance that it will be depleted, causing irreparable loss and hardship to workmen employed by the second respondent. 5. Section 14(B) of the Act reads as follows: “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 15 [ or sub-Section 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 authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, in this behalf] may recover [from 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 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.] 6. As seen from Section 14(B), the power to recover damages from the employer is only discretionary, as the Section says only “may recover”. In the instant case admittedly, the second respondent is a company and even in the reply made to the demand made by the petitioner for the payment of damages under Section 14B, they have expressed that they are facing a financial crisis. 7. The impugned order passed by the first respondent is a detailed and well considered order. Each and every ground raised by the petitioner in this writ petition has been answered in the impugned order dated 03.03.2009, passed by the first respondent. The first respondent has rightly held that the imposition of damages under Section 14B of the Act is only discretionary. Each and every ground raised by the petitioner in this writ petition has been answered in the impugned order dated 03.03.2009, passed by the first respondent. The first respondent has rightly held that the imposition of damages under Section 14B of the Act is only discretionary. As rightly observed, Section 14B does not mandate that the order for damages must follow in the event of every default. As seen from the materials available on record, there was no deliberate intention on the part of the second respondent to delay the payment of Provident Fund. 8. The Tribunal has rightly held that the regulation 32A in which a graded scale for imposition of damages has been provided cannot be regarded as a rigid or inflexible prescription and regulations cannot be a fetter to the exercise of the power that is conferred upon the Provident Fund Commissioner by the provisions of the enactment, but guide and channelise the exercise of discretion. The Tribunal has also rightly held that neither regulation 32A or 32B can be regarded as inflexible. The Tribunal has also rightly held that the words used in Clause 32A that “may recover from the employer by way of penalty damages at the rates given below” would also suggest and the same is intended only as a guideline and is not mandatory. The Tribunal has also followed the Judgment of High Court of Kerala in the case of Indian Telephone Industries Limited Vs. APFC and others reported in 2006(3) KLJ 698 and the decision of High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s. Cable Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2006 (003) CLR 349 Bombay and the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Organo Chemical Industries and another Vs. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1979 SC 1803 , while coming to the conclusion. 9. This Court does not find any infirmity in restricting the damages imposed on the second respondent up to 15% per annum on the arrears of contribution. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in following the decision of the High Court of Orissa in the case of Bhubaneswar City Distribution Division Vs. Union Of India and another reported in 1998 II LLJ 1044 for the said purpose. 10. In the result, there is no merit in this writ petition. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in following the decision of the High Court of Orissa in the case of Bhubaneswar City Distribution Division Vs. Union Of India and another reported in 1998 II LLJ 1044 for the said purpose. 10. In the result, there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.