ORDER : Pulla Karthik, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…. to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of a certiorari and to call for records relating to the order passed by the 2 nd respondent i.e, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad in IA No 1 & 2 in EPF Appeal No.41 of 2024 dated 01/11/2024 and quash and set aside the said order, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and in violation to the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and grant such other relief or relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2) Heard Mr. C.Niranjan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. T.Bala Jayasree, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.1, and Sri G.Venkateshwarlu, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.2. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 7A(1)(b) of Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short ‘1952 Act’) for the period from April 2017 to October 2019 on the ground that EPF contributions are to be paid without restricting it to the employees salary limit of Rs.15,000/- per month and without considering any of the objections raised by the petitioner, the first respondent has passed an order dated 26.11.2020 under Section 7A of the Act determining the PF contribution dues payable by the petitioner as Rs.14,86,08,946/- for the said period. Despite the financial constraints, the petitioner Company has paid the total amounts towards contributions by taking few instalments and the said amount has also been accepted by respondent No.1 without any protest and the Company is also regularly paying its current provident fund contributions well in time in accordance with the provisions of the law. However, in view of some delay in depositing the EPF contributions, respondent No.1 has issued a notice dated 09.10.2023 proposing to claim damages for the period January, 2011, to July, 2021, after a lapse of 12 years. However, in view of some delay in depositing the EPF contributions, respondent No.1 has issued a notice dated 09.10.2023 proposing to claim damages for the period January, 2011, to July, 2021, after a lapse of 12 years. Further, without giving due consideration to any of the submissions of the petitioner and without considering the sickness and other circumstances including Corporate Insolvency Process carried out under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and in a mechanical manner, respondent No.1 had passed the order dated 16.07.2024 under Section 14B of the 1952 Act directing the petitioner to pay Rs.13,28,40,598/- as damages for the period from January, 2011, to July, 2021. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the statutory appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, under Section 7-I of the 1952 Act raising several grounds and mainly contending that the petitioner is not liable to pay any damages and also filed two petitions in the said appeal seeking to waive the condition of pre-deposit and for suspension of the order dated 16.07.2024. However, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has passed the order dated 01.11.2024 directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount mentioned in the order dated 16.07.2024. Learned counsel has contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the issues relating to the financial sickness and endeavors to revive the Company through CIRP, which is the basic criteria for imposing the condition and thereby mechanically ordered to pre-deposit 20% of the determined amount. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is contrary to the material available on record and not in accordance with law. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per Section 7-O of the 1952 Act the pre- deposit of the amount arises in case of the appeals filed against the orders passed under Section 7A of the 1952 Act only but the said condition is not applicable in case of the appeals filed under Section 14B of the 1952 Act. The said principle was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shiv Harbal Research Laboratory v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner , 2016 Labour Law Reporter 55. The said principle was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shiv Harbal Research Laboratory v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner , 2016 Labour Law Reporter 55. Therefore, it is contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside to the extent of ordering to pay 20% of the determined amount under Section 14B of the Act within a period of six weeks. 4) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner establishment is covered under the provisions of EPF & MP Act, 1952 with Code No.AP/HYD/176 and the schemes framed under the said Act are applicable to the Establishments are Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, and the Employees’ Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976. Therefore, respondent No.1 has issued summons on 09.10.2023 to the petitioner Establishment to attend the virtual hearing before the authority on 14.11.2023 to represent the matter of levy of damages under Section 14B of the 1952 Act. It is further contended that the matter underwent several adjournments before the authority. Finally, after hearing the arguments, the authority found that the petitioner Establishment is a habitual defaulter as evident from the statement of damages from January, 2011 to July, 2021, and the contention of financial distress or the initiation of CIRP cannot come to the rescue of the establishment which has failed to comply with the provisions of the law and has consistently defaulted since 2011. It is further submitted that the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, is a social welfare legislation and successful working of the social security scheme depends on the prompt compliance made by the employer. It is the duty of the employer to pay statutory dues within 15 days of the close of every month and Section 14B of the 1952 Act provides for levy of penal damages on belated remittances. Therefore, the authority in exercise of the powers conferred by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour No.S.O.1553 dated 17.04.2022 issued under Section 14B of the 1952 Act read with 32A of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, as well as para 5 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1976, has imposed damages for the period from January, 2011, to July, 2021, payable by the Establishment at the rate specified. Further, under Section 14B of the 1952 Act the Authority has also ordered that the amounts of the damages shall be payable by the employer, failing which, action shall be taken under Section 8 of the 1952 Act to recover the amounts. Assailing the order, dated 16.07.2024 passed by respondent No.1, the petitioner had filed EPF Appeal No.41 of 2024 before the Tribunal i.e. respondent No.2 wherein the petitioner had also filed two IAs for waiver and stay of operation of the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal. On considering the material facts and law, respondent No.2 has rightly passed the orders on 01.11.2024 and stayed the operation of the impugned order therein and subject to remittance of 20% of the determined amount under Section 14B of the Act of 1952 within six weeks. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same may be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the order dated passed by the High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.7933 of 2014. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective parties and perused the material on record. 6) A perusal of the record discloses that admittedly respondent No.1 has passed the order dated 16.07.2024 under Section 14B of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and ordered the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.13,28,40,598/- towards penal damages. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has preferred EPF Appeal No.41/2024 under Section 7-I of the 1952 Act before respondent No.2 along with IA Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 wherein respondent No.2 has passed the order dated 01.11.2024 and stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 16.07.2024 subject to remittance of 20% of the amount determined under Section 14B of the 1952 Act, within a period of six weeks thereof. The said condition of pre-deposit is under challenge before this Court. 7) At the juncture, this Court deems it apt to refer Section 7-O as well as Section 14B of the 1952 Act, which read as under: 7-O. Deposit of amount due, on filing of appeal. - No appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal unless he has deposited with it seventy-five per cent. 7) At the juncture, this Court deems it apt to refer Section 7-O as well as Section 14B of the 1952 Act, which read as under: 7-O. Deposit of amount due, on filing of appeal. - No appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal unless he has deposited with it seventy-five per cent. of the amount due from him as determined by an officer referred to in Section 7A: Provided that the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this section. 14B. Power to recover damages.- Where an employer makes default payment 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 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 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in the Scheme.” 8) From the above, it is clear that in respect of the order passed under Section 14B of the Act the requirement of deposit to be made at the time of filing of the appeal is not indicated/prescribed. 9) In this context, this Court feels it necessary to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Herbal’s case (referred supra) wherein it is held as under: “2. 9) In this context, this Court feels it necessary to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Herbal’s case (referred supra) wherein it is held as under: “2. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the Respondent, having regard to the fact that had it been the intention of the legislature to also include the principles incorporated in Section 7-O of the above Act, the same would have been indicated in the provision relating to filing of appeals against such orders. Section 7-O makes specific reference to orders passed under in terms of Section 7A where it has been laid down that no appeal by the employer shall be entertained unless he has deposited 75% of the amount due from him as determined by an officer referred to in Section 7A. The proviso to Section 7O, however, grants the Tribunal discretion for reasons to be recorded in writing, to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under the said section. There is no such provision as far Section 14B is concerned. 3. Apart from the above, the provision for preferring an appeal in respect of an order Under Section 14B is contained in Section 7-I of the above Act which provides for appeals to the Tribunal, inter alia against orders passed Under Section 14-B. Sub-section (2) of Section 7-I indicates that every appeal Under Sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed. There is nothing to indicate that any part of the amount awarded Under Section 14B was required to be deposited at the time of filing of the appeal. 4. There is nothing to indicate that any part of the amount awarded Under Section 14B was required to be deposited at the time of filing of the appeal. 4. When specific provision has been made with regard to appeals Under Section 7A and Under Section 7-O, a definite provision has been indicated for deposit of 75% of the awarded amount and there is no such provision in Section 7-I, we cannot read the principles of Section 7-O into the provisions of Section 7-I in relation to appeals Under Section 14B of the above Act.” 10) From the above settled law, it is clear that the condition of pre-deposit of amount is applicable to the order passed under Section 7A of the 1952 Act only whereas in the present case, the order is passed under Section 14B of the 1952 Act. Therefore, the question of pre-deposit does not arise in the case on hand. 11) For the afore-mentioned reasons and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Herbal’s case (referred supra) , this Court is of the view that the order dated 01.11.2024 passed by respondent No.2 to the extent of directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the determined amount under Section 14B of the Act of 1952 is unsustainable under the law. 12) Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order dated 01.11.2024 passed by respondent No.2, to the extent of ordering remittance of 20% of the determined amount under Section 14B of the 1952 Act, is set aside. Remaining portion of the order dated 01.11.2024 stands unaltered. Further, the Tribunal shall expedite the hearing of the appeal. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.