RAJESH BALIA.J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THE appellant is aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Single Judge reducing the quantum of damages imposed by the Dy. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Jaipur. The Dy. Regional Director has imposed penalty by way of damages 100% of the amount in default. By perusing the scheme of Section 85 -B, the learned Single Judge has held that quantum of damages as prescribed under Section 85 -B is the maximum limit and not to be imposed as a matter of course in all cases, the competent officer appears to have imposed maximum damages without considering the room for exercise of his judicial discretion. Reliance was placed on behalf of the Corporation on a Gazette Notification dated 23rd Nov., 1979 (Gazette of India), by which different rates of levying damages have been prescribed for urging that the Corporation has prescribed a uniform rate of damages in all cases depending on number of defaulted and period of continuing default, and therefore, the levy of 100% damages on the amount of default was warranted by the said Notification. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that, the Notification was published in contravention of the substantive provision laying rigid formula of levying maximum penalty and not leaving it to the discretion of the competent officer, has reduced the damages to 25% of the amount in default instead of 100% in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has urged that Section 85 -B authorises the Corporation to quantify the amount of damages and the Gazette Notification has prescribed the quantification of the damages by the Corporation. The quantification is not to be done by individual officer, therefore, according to the learned Counsel the order under appeal is erroneous to the extent it hold the Notification dated 23rd Nov., 1979 as a device to do indirectly what could not be done directly.;