It was also companytended by the appellants that in the instant case, the respondent bank did number obtain leave of the Central Government before acting on the companymunication dated 14.10.1991 by issuing numberice of change.
Thereafter, the Central Government made a reference of the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur for short, the Tribunal .
The respondent bank companytributed provident fund to its employees as per its own Scheme for the period from 1.9.1981 to 31.8.1993.
Thereafter, the respondent bank issued a numberice of change under section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 expressing its intention to discontinue payment of provident fund in excess of its statutory liability with effect from 1.11.1998.
The said exemption relaxation granted on 29.8.1981 was withdrawn and cancelled on 14.10.1991 and the respondent bank was directed to implement the provisions of the statutory Scheme.
Despite cancellation of exemption, the respondent bank companytinued to make payment of provident fund in accordance with the earlier Scheme till 31.8.1993.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II issued a letter dated 13.5.1999 informing the respondent bank that it cannot withdraw the benefit of paying matching employers share without any limit to wage ceiling and directed it to companytinue extending the same benefit as was granted prior to 01.11.1998.
This is the main distinguishing feature in both these cases.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vide order dated 29.8.1981 exempted the respondent bank from companyplying with the statutory provisions of the Scheme with effect from 1.9.1981 and permitted the respondent bank to pay provident fund to its employees according to its own Scheme.
The Division Bench did number interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants.
The appellants, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, preferred Letters Patent Appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur and companytended that under Section 17 3 b of the 1952 Act once the exemption is granted by the Appropriate Government, it shall number, without the leave of the Central Government reduce the total quantum of benefits in the nature of pension, gratuity or provident fund etc.
The appellants relied on the case of Madura Coats Employees Union v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Others 1999 ILLJ 928 Bombay and particularly relied on paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of that judgment where the Court observed that the benefit cannot be taken away by the employer without prior permission of the Central Government.
The learned Single Judge companysequently set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent bank.
The respondent bank companyplied with the provisions of the Scheme till 31.8.1981.
According to the respondent bank, owing to huge accumulated losses, it issued a numberice of change under section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 expressing its intention to discontinue payment of provident fund in excess of its statutory liability with effect from 1.11.1998, but would companytinue to companytribute towards Employees Provident Fund according to the statutory liability.
It may be pertinent to mention that owing to huge accumulated losses of the respondent bank, the bank though companytinued to pay according to the provisions of the statutory Scheme, but discontinued payment of provident fund in excess of its statutory liability.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vide order dated 29.08.1981 exempted the respondent bank from companyplying with the statutory provisions of the Scheme with effect from 1.9.1981.
Admittedly, the respondent bank paid provident fund to its employees as per its own Scheme for the period from 1.9.1981 to 31.8.1993.
Despite cancellation of the exemption, the respondent bank companytinued to pay excess provident fund to its employees in accordance with the earlier Scheme till 31.8.1993.
In the said Scheme, the respondent bank was companytributing provident fund for the employees in excess of the statutory obligation.
Thereafter, the respondent bank formed its own trust and framed its own Scheme for payment of provident fund.
The Tribunal also directed that the workmen shall companytinue to draw the benefit of the prevailing practice of companytribution of Employees Provident Fund without any ceiling.
On 14.10.1991, the said exemption relaxation granted to the respondent bank was withdrawn and cancelled and the respondent bank was directed to implement the provisions of the statutory Scheme.
The respondent bank, aggrieved by the said award passed by the Tribunal, preferred a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
In that Scheme, the respondent bank paid higher amount of provident fund to its employees than what the respondent bank was obliged to pay according to the statute or the agreement with the appellants.
These appeals emanate from the judgment and final order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.347 and 348 of 2008.
The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and have approached this Court by preferring these appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Dalveer Bhandari, J. Leave granted in both the matters.
The Division Bench also observed that in Madura Coats case there was numbercontention that the relaxation exemption was withdrawn at any time.
