JUDGMENT : P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J. 1. The judgment dated 31.01.2023 dismissing W.P.(C) No. 2084 of 2012 is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. The Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, and its Regional Manager, Thiruvananthapuram are the appellants. 2. The respondent issued a notice dated 24.09.2004 to the appellants by exercising the powers conferred under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act) owing to the belated payment of provident fund contribution, employees’ family pension fund contribution, deposit linked insurance fund contribution, administrative charges and inspection charges for the period from March, 1997 to February, 2003. The interest component was Rs.1,21,366/-and damages was Rs.3,50,736/-totalling Rs.4,72,102/-. After considering the objection raised about the computation, the amount was refixed as per Ext. P3 order dated 16.12.2004 as Rs.2,58,159/-i.e., 68,536 under Section 7Q and Rs.1,89,623/-under Section 14B of the Act. Against that order an appeal was preferred before the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. However, the respondent initiated action under Section 8F(3) of the Act for recovery of the amount. 3. The petitioner therefore approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 871 of 2005. This Court vide judgment dated 10.01.2005 directed the appellants to deposit the interest portion within a week and directed the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within three months. In compliance with the direction, interest portion was deposited. The appellate Tribunal vide order dated 31.12.2005 dismissed the appeal which was assailed in this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 19336/05. This Court vide Ext.P4 judgment dated 16.02.2011 set aside the order and remanded the case back to the Commissioner. As directed in Ext.P4 judgment of this Court, the respondent held a personal hearing and passed order dated 02.06.2011, which is Ext.P5. Challenging that order the appellants filed the present writ petition. It was contended that the Ext.P5 was not sustainable in law on the ground that the respondent failed to understand the words 'may recover' occurring in Section 14B of the Act and omitted to exercise its discretion. The materials on record substantiated that there was no malafide action or inaction on the part of the appellants in not depositing the contribution in time and therefore the damages as prescribed under Section 14B of the Act in total should not have been imposed. The materials on record substantiated that there was no malafide action or inaction on the part of the appellants in not depositing the contribution in time and therefore the damages as prescribed under Section 14B of the Act in total should not have been imposed. It was contended that the respondent did not consider such aspects while issuing Ext.P5 order. 4. The learned Single Judge relying on the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal, Coorg v. Regional Provident Fund Organization, (2022) 4 SCC 516 held that there was no merit in the writ petition. The resultant dismissal of the writ petition is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 6. The interest that was found due on account of the delayed remittance of the provident fund contribution and other remittances, under Section 7Q of the Act was already paid. Of course, that was in terms of the direction of this Court as per the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 871 of 2005. The challenge now is confined to the damages imposed under Section 14B of the Act in terms of Ext.P5. 7. The essential contention is that this Court in terms of Ext.P4 judgment directed the respondent to consider objectively the objections the appellants have raised, but Ext.P5 sans any such consideration. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellants would submit that the law laid down in the Horticulture Experiment Station (2022) 4 SCC 516 was not applied appropriately and that resulted in the dismissal of the writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel places reliance on the decision of the High Court of Karnataka dated 27.06.2023 in W.A. No. 587 of 2016 [Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. HMT Ltd.] in order to fortify the contention that the respondent failed to exercise its discretion legally and judicially. 8. The question whether mens rea or actus reus on the part of the employer in its default in making payment of the contribution amount is a sine qua non for imposing damages is no longer res integra. 8. The question whether mens rea or actus reus on the part of the employer in its default in making payment of the contribution amount is a sine qua non for imposing damages is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in Horticulture Experiment Station (2022) 4 SCC 516 held that default or delay in payment of provident fund contribution by the employer under the Act is a sine qua non for imposition of levy of damages under Section 14B of the Act and mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty/damages for breach of such civil obligations/liabilities. The same is the principle laid down by this Court in Standard Furniture, Calicut v. Registrar EPF Appellate Tribunal and another, 2020 (3) KHC 793 and Central Board of Trustees v. Bake N. Joy, Hot Bakery, 2024 (1) KLT 391 . 9. A Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, after adverting to the aforesaid principle and the law laid down in Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India and others, (1998) 2 SCC 242 took the view that the Provident Fund Commissioner has the discretion to recover from the employer by way of penalty/damages, not exceeding the amount of arrears, as may be specified in the scheme. It has been explained that while deciding the amount of damages, the Commissioner shall take into account the circumstances pointed out by the employer for the delay. Computation of damages shall not be a mechanical act. 10. Of course, in Ext.P5 the respondent has stated that he has applied his mind to all the relevant facts and had gone into the reasons stated by the employer. The respondent thereafter took the view that the difficulties faced by the appellants were not excuses for not complying with the provisions of the Act and the Scheme made thereunder. Damages as imposed earlier was accordingly affirmed. 11. It is not stated in Ext.P5 as to at what rate the amount of damages was computed. But, from the assertion in paragraph No. 16 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent in the writ petition, it is seen that the damages was computed at the rate of 25%. What is averred is that the authority is obliged, after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and position of the employer, to impose damages not exceeding 25%. 12. What is averred is that the authority is obliged, after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and position of the employer, to impose damages not exceeding 25%. 12. The reasons for the delay in payment of the subscription were that the appellants were not allotted a code number in time and that there occurred delay in disbursal of wages on account of labour disputes. Why those reasons could not have any bearing on the delay in making payment of the contribution amounts has not been considered in Ext.P5 order. Rather, the reason not to reckon such reasons while exercising the discretion to fix the quantum of damages is not reflected in Ext. P5 order. It is therefore to say that sufficient reasons are not given in Ext.P5 to support the findings. 13. As observed by the learned Single Judge, it would be a farcical exercise if the appellants are relegated for an appeal again in the matter which arose as early as in 2004. That apart, the respondent has rendered Ext.P5 order in compliance to the directions of this Court as per Ext.P4 judgment. Such a direction was issued after setting aside the order of the appellate authority. For that reason also, it is not just or legal to relegate the appellants to another appeal before the EPF Appellate Tribunal. 14. As stated above, the respondent did not consider the reasons for the delay in making payment of the amounts of contribution by the appellants in its proper perspective. Although the respondent is not obliged to consider whether the delay involves any mens rea or actus reus on the part of the employer, he certainly is obliged to consider the bona fides and genuineness of the reasons for the delay while exercising the discretion to quantify the damages. As averred by the respondent the damages shall be not exceeding 25%, which implies that it can be at a lesser rate also, if there exists sufficient reasons. 15. The 1st appellant is a Government undertaking. When the reasons for the delay stated by the appellants have reasonable justification, we are of the view that the damages ought to have been computed at a lesser rate. We, after considering the facts and circumstances of this case which are mentioned above, fix the damages under Section 14B of the Act at the rate of 15%. When the reasons for the delay stated by the appellants have reasonable justification, we are of the view that the damages ought to have been computed at a lesser rate. We, after considering the facts and circumstances of this case which are mentioned above, fix the damages under Section 14B of the Act at the rate of 15%. Impugned judgment is varied and W.P. (C) No. 2084 of 2012 is allowed to the above extent. The respondent shall recalculate the amount of damages accordingly.