JUDGMENT : DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr. Gilbert George Correya learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Nita N. S. for the respondent. 2. The present writ petition has been filed impugning Exhibit P-7 proceedings and Exhibit P-8 demand notice issued by the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram dated 14.01.2016 demanding damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘EPF Act’ for short) and the interest under Section 7Q of the EPF Act for alleged default in making the contribution of PF by the Bank and delay in making the contribution. 3. After the Kerala State Co-operative Bank and District Co- operative Bank Employees’ Self Financing Pension Scheme, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Scheme of 2005’ for short) was promulgated by the State Government w.e.f. 01.04.2005 for the employees of the Co-operative Bank, the petitioner Bank moved an application under Section 16(1)(b) of the EPF Act for granting exclusion from making payment of PF contribution in the EPF Scheme of the EPF Act. The petitioner’s application was considered by the Provident Fund Commissioner and vide the order dated 26.05.2009, the petitioner was excluded from the provision of the EPF Act w.e.f. 01.04.2005 i.e. the date of the Scheme of 2005. 4. After the order dated 26.05.2009 was passed by the Provident Fund Commissioner granting exclusion to the petitioner, the petitioner was specifically intimated vide the communication dated 30.06.2009 in Exhibit P-2 asking the petitioner to stop remittance of the EPF contribution/ Administrative Charges/Inspection Charges to the EPF Organization forthwith. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was making contribution in the Employees Pension Scheme till 30.06.2009 and, after 30.06.2009, the petitioner was asked to stop remittance of EPF Organization forthwith, the petitioner had stopped making contribution in the Employees Pension Scheme under the EPF Act. 5. The said exclusion order in Exhibit P-1 passed under Section 16(1)(b) of the EPF Act came to be challenged by some employees of the petitioner before this Court. This Court vide Exhibit P-3 Judgment dated in W.P.(C) No. 9970 of 2008 reported in 2012 (1) KLT 633 set aside the order of exclusion dated 26.05.2009. 6. 5. The said exclusion order in Exhibit P-1 passed under Section 16(1)(b) of the EPF Act came to be challenged by some employees of the petitioner before this Court. This Court vide Exhibit P-3 Judgment dated in W.P.(C) No. 9970 of 2008 reported in 2012 (1) KLT 633 set aside the order of exclusion dated 26.05.2009. 6. After the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner was informed by the EPF Organization that the petitioner is liable to comply with all the provisions of the EPF Act notwithstanding the fact that the State has sponsored self financing pension scheme which was introduced to its employees vide the communication dated 18.05.2012 in Exhibit P-4. 7. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner thereafter issued summons to the petitioner pointing out that during the pendency of the application for exemption/exclusion there were certain dues regarding the payments. The petitioner responded to the said notice/summons and submitted explanation to the notice. 8. The respondent passed an order under Section 7(2) levying interest of Rs. 1,92,253/- on the premise that there had been certain delays in payment of the contribution. It appears that, thereafter the petitioner had made certain payments. The damages ordered under Section 14B of the EPF Act was also issued on the same date i.e. 14.01.2016 levying the damages of Rs. 3,61,310/-. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 14B is a penal provision and unless there is willful default in making the contribution, the said provision could not be applicable for levying the damages for non contribution in the Employees Pension Scheme of the EPF Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was making contribution till 30.06.2009 and once the order of exclusion was passed in Exhibit P-1 and the petitioner was communicated to stop forthwith making the contribution in the Employees Pension Scheme, he stopped making the contribution. Thus, there was no default in making the contribution from 01.07.2009 till the petitioner received the communication on 12.03.2014. the said notice is in consequence to the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 9970 of 2008 (supra). If there was no default in making the contribution because of the aforesaid improvements and circumstances, there was no question of levying the damages under Section 14B of the EPF Act. 10. the said notice is in consequence to the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 9970 of 2008 (supra). If there was no default in making the contribution because of the aforesaid improvements and circumstances, there was no question of levying the damages under Section 14B of the EPF Act. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the order passed under Section 7Q also would suggest that the interest has been levied for the period from 01.07.2009 to 12.03.2014. when the petitioner was not required to make contribution in the Employees Pension Scheme during the period, there were no question of any delay in making the contribution and therefore, the interest for the reason cannot be levied. 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, respondent has not taken into consideration these facts while passing the impugned orders in Exhibits P-7 and P-8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the remittance of interest and penalty already paid also has not been factored in the impugned orders which are evident from Exhibit P-10. 12. The learned Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the factual aspect but, submits that the penalty and damages are statutory in nature inasmuch as the penalty and damages are provided under Section 14B of the EPF Act for delay and default in making the contribution. Therefore, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has acted in accordance with the law and the provisions of the Act while imposing the penalty and damages under Section 7Q and 14B of the EPF Act. 13. I have considered the submissions. The facts are not in dispute. When the petitioner was granted exclusion by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner himself, and it was communicated vide the communication dated 30.06.2009 not to make any contribution in the Scheme etc., the petitioner did not make the contribution and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was a default on the part of the petitioner in making the contribution from 01.07.2009 to 12.03.2014. If the petitioner was not required to make contribution during this period, there cannot be attributed any delay in making the contribution. If the petitioner was not required to make contribution during this period, there cannot be attributed any delay in making the contribution. In fact the petitioner has been again asked to make contribution in view of the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 9970 of 2008 (supra) whereby the exclusion granted to the petitioner vide the order dated 26.05.2009 was set aside. 14. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the view the matter requires reconsideration by the respondent. Thus, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to decide afresh in the light of the aforesaid facts mentioned herein after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Any contribution made by the petitioner should also be taken into consideration while arriving at the decision regarding short payment/interest and damages. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner should issue a notice to the petitioner for their presence and personal hearing.