JUDGMENT Alok Aradhe, J. - The petitioner in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has assailed the validity of the order dated 02.11.2015 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner by which the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has imposed a penalty of Rs. 26,54,218/- as damages and has further directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 13,85,278/- as interest. The petitioner has also assailed the validity of the order dated 26.06.2020 passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short) by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the aforesaid order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has been affirmed. 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal in nutshell are that the petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacture of readymade garments viz., trousers. The employees of the petitioners are covered under the provisions of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that sometime in the year 2012, buyers of the petitioner viz., Hasbro Clothing and S. Kumar Limited viz., the public limited companies defaulted in making payments to the petitioner, as a result of which the cash flow of the petitioner was affected. It is stated that on account of the aforesaid financial difficulty, there was a delay on the part of the petitioner in remitting the amount to provident fund contribution for the period from April 2013 to January 2015. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner issued a notice dated 21.08.2015 to the petitioner by which the petitioner was asked to show cause as to how a sum of Rs. 26,54,218/- be not imposed as damages under Section 14B of the Act and the petitioner be not directed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,85,278/- as interest. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid notice in which inter alia it was pointed out that on account of bad debts, there was a delay in remitting the amount of provident fund contribution for a period from April 2013 to January 2015. 3. 13,85,278/- as interest. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid notice in which inter alia it was pointed out that on account of bad debts, there was a delay in remitting the amount of provident fund contribution for a period from April 2013 to January 2015. 3. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner however, by an order dated 02.11.2015 inter alia held that the plea of financial set back due to non payment from the debts of the petitioner cannot be a sufficient ground for non payment of statutory dues in time. It was further held that the petitioner is continuously in default of provident fund contribution to the extent that employees share of contribution, which was deducted from the salary of the employees has also been deposited on time. Accordingly, the penalty for a sum of Rs. 26,54,218/- under Section 14B was directed to be paid as damages under Section 14B of the Act. In addition, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,85,278/- as interest. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal by an order dated 2.06.2020, inter alia, held that the documents furnished by the petitioner itself does not substantiate the contention of the petitioner with regard to its precarious financial condition. It was further held that the situation arising out of the pandemic is not a good ground to interfere with the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 13,85,278/- towards interest. It is further submitted that a bench of this court by an order dated 22.09.2020 had directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount of damages and in compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner has deposited Rs. 13,27,399/-. It is also submitted that the petitioner suffered financial hardship and due to circumstances beyond its control could not remit the provident fund contribution in time. It is also urged that there is no element of mens rea on the part of the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of penalty deserves to be reduced by 50%. It is also urged that there is no element of mens rea on the part of the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of penalty deserves to be reduced by 50%. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'Mysore Bangle Works vs. State of Mysore, 1973 (26) FLR 87, 'ESIC v. HMT', (2008) 3 SCC 35 , 'RPFC v. Kaytee Switchgear Limited, 2003 LAB IC 34 (KAR. HC), 'RPFC v. Harrisons Malayalam', 2013 (139) FLR 665 (Kerala HC), 'Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. v. RPFC, ILR 2014 KAR. 3184 (KAR HC), and 'M/s. Cars Scanners v. EPFC, 2020 ILR 77 (PATNA HC). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submit that valid and cogent reasons have been exercised by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the aforesaid order has rightly been upheld by the tribunal. It is also urged that the petitioner is continuously in default and it is not a case of mere financial difficulty and a categorical finding has been recorded by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as well as the tribunal that there is an element of mens rea on the part of the petitioner in delayed payment of the amount of provident fund. 6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant statutory provision viz., Section 14B of the Act, which reads as under: 14B. 6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant statutory provision viz., Section 14B of the Act, which reads as under: 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 sub-section (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 authorised 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, subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in the Scheme. 7. The power to levy damages under Section 14B is discretionary and computation of quantum of damages has to be ascertained after taking into account the number of defaults, the period of delay, the frequency of default and the amount involved. The adjudicating authority is also required to ascertain whether there was any element of mens rea for delay in remitting the amount of provident fund. The Supreme Court in Organo Chemical Industries and Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.', (1979) 4 SCC 573 has held that the employees contribution is a trust money with the employer for depositing the same in statutory fund and the delay in deposit on the part of the employer amounts to breach of the trust. The Supreme Court in Organo Chemical Industries and Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.', (1979) 4 SCC 573 has held that the employees contribution is a trust money with the employer for depositing the same in statutory fund and the delay in deposit on the part of the employer amounts to breach of the trust. It has further been held that power cut, financial problems and dispute between the partners were not relevant considerations. The aforesaid decision was reiterated in Hindustan Times Limited vs. Union of India and Others', (1998) 2 SCC 242 . 8. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal principles, we may advert to the facts of the case. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner has belatedly remitted the amount of provident fund contribution for a period from April 2013 to January 2015. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner inter alia has held that plea regarding financial set back due to non payment of the amount from the debtors cannot be a sufficient ground for non payment of statutory dues. It has further been held that petitioner has been in continuously in default of provident fund contributions to the extent of employees share of contribution which has been deducted from the salary of employees and the same has also been not deposited in time. Accordingly, the petitioner has been directed to pay damages as well as interest. The aforesaid order has been affirmed in appeal by the tribunal. The petitioner has admitted the fact of delayed remittance of the amount of provident fund contribution. The only defence which has been taken is that the amount of provident fund could not be remitted on time as the petitioner was suffering from financial crises. The aforesaid ground is not a relevant criteria in deciding the quantum of damages in a proceeding under Section 14B of the Act as is held by Supreme Court in Organo Chemical Industries and Hindustan Times Limited Supra. For the aforementioned reasons, the order passed by the regional provident fund commissioner do not suffer either from any infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this court. In the result, we do not find any merit in this petition, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.