FAO No. 2074 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2074 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.3.2011 Ess Emm Family Trust .. Appellant v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Tarun Thakur, Advocate for Mr. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of two appeals bearing No. 2074 and 2075 of 2001, as similar question of law is involved. The facts have been extracted from FAO No. 2074 of 2011. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 9.2.2011 of the Employees' State Insurance Court, Amritsar dismissing the petition filed by the appellant challenging order dated 6.5.2008 levying damages on the appellant on account of delayed payment of ESI contribution. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant is covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, `the Act'). On account of delayed deposit of contribution for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95, a notice was issued in April, 2008 for levy of damages. The contribution which was required to be paid on 19.9.1995 was actually paid on 17.11.2007. Considering the reply filed by the appellant, vide order dated FAO No. 2074 of 2011 [2] 6.5.2008, damages to the extent of 100% were levied. The petition filed by the appellant before the Employees' State Insurance Court was dismissed. The order is impugned before this court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was huge delay in levy of damages, which cannot be sustained as for the period 1993- 94, the order levying damages was passed on 6.5.2008. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the submission made. As far as the issue as to whether the amount of ESI contribution was due from the appellant, there is no dispute as the same was deposited by the appellant. It is also a fact which was not disputed, as has been noticed by the court below in the impugned order, is that ESI contribution which was due on 19.9.1995 was in fact paid on 17.11.2007. The notice for levy of damages was issued thereafter on 29.4.2008 and it cannot be said that after deposit, there was any delay for levy of damages on account of delayed contribution. In Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India and others, (1998) 2 SCC 242, Hon'ble the Supreme Court considering a similar issue under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 held that delay in initiating action under Section 14-B thereof cannot amount to prejudice, inasmuch as the delay on the part of the department would have only allowed the employer to use the monies for his own purposes or for his business. Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find any merit in the present appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 8.3.2011 mk