JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated July 21, 1981 (Annexure 3) whereby the establishment was directed to make compliance of the provision of the 'Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952' within a period of 10 days of receipt of this order, failing which enquiry under Section 7A of the Act would continue for assessment of the dues. 2. The petitioner is a statutory body created under Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. The petitioner is required to clean the city and preserve the health safely and convenience of the people within the limits of municipality. For this purpose the petitioner is maintaining some vehicles. The petitioner has its own workshop for repairing of the vehicles. The Respondent No.2 sent a registered notice dated October 21, 1975 asking the petitioner to deposit the charges with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for the months of January 1975 to July 1975 and it was further held that the petitioner is liable to pay the charges under the scheme provided under the Act. In reply to this notice the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has its own workshop where the minor repairs and servicing is carried on, and the employees in workshop are enjoying the benefits of Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity under the scheme of Rajasthan Municipalities (Contributory Provident Fund and Gratuity) Rules, 1969. Thereafter one more registered letter was sent to the petitioner dated August 6, 1981 alongwith the letter dated July 21, 1981 requiring him to make payment of provident fund within 10 days. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order July 21, 1981 this writ petition has been filed in 1984. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri Jain learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though the order was sent to the petitioner in the year 1981, but the writ petition has been filed in the year 1984 and the writ petition is belated. Such delay should not be condoned. Learned counsel for petitioner Shri Surana submitted that he received the order of July 21, 1981 in the year 1984 and as soon as he received the order he filed the writ petition in the year 1984. The petitioner has filed the writ petition in the year 1984 and since then ten years have elapsed. Learned counsel for petitioner Shri Surana submitted that he received the order of July 21, 1981 in the year 1984 and as soon as he received the order he filed the writ petition in the year 1984. The petitioner has filed the writ petition in the year 1984 and since then ten years have elapsed. Hence, instead of going into the issue of reasonable or unreasonable delay, I prefer to decide the writ petition on merits. Therefore the delay is condoned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Surana submitted that when the establishment is statutory body and it has its own contributory fund and scheme for other benefits of the employees which is more favourable than the scheme under Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the scheme under the Central Act is not applicable. He further submitted that w.e.f. August 1, 1988 the Clause V of Section 16 of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has been inserted and it has been made clear that in case of the employees of the establishment, which has been set up under the said Act and whose employees are entitled to the benefit of contributory fund or old age pension in accordance with any scheme or rule framed under that Act governing such benefits, the provisions of the scheme made under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 will not be applicable. 6. Shri Jain learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that this Court cannot decide the factual position that the scheme made by the petitioner is more beneficial to its employees than the scheme made under the Central Act. He further submitted that provisions of this Act, 1952 will not be applicable after August 1, 1988 only in case if the case is covered under Clause (c) of Section 16 of the 'Act 1952'. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner Shri Surana submitted that in the statutory Rules of the petitioner various benefits are given to the employees of workshop such as 8⅓% provident fund contribution to provident fund, gratuity and pension etc. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner Shri Surana submitted that in the statutory Rules of the petitioner various benefits are given to the employees of workshop such as 8⅓% provident fund contribution to provident fund, gratuity and pension etc. Shri Jain counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that under the scheme of Central Act apart from the contribution of the provident fund 8% at the relevant time now 10%, benefit of family pension, Insurance scheme is also given which is not available to the employees in a scheme made by the petitioner. 8. Whether the scheme made by the petitioner is more favourable to employees of workshop of petitioner or the scheme made under Central Act is a question of fact and that cannot be decided at this stage. Therefore I remit the matter back to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to consider the provisions of both the schemes. If the scheme of petitioner is more favourable than the scheme made under Central Act, the exemption under Section 17B of the Act be accorded to the petitioner for the period upto July 31, 1988. For the period after August 1, 1988 the provisions of Clause (c) of Section 16 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 1988' came into force, in view of that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is not applicable as the establishment set up under State Act and whose employees are entitled to the benefits of contributory provident fund or old age pension in accordance with any scheme or rule framed under that Act governing such benefits. When the petitioner has framed the scheme and its employees of workshop of petitioner are enjoying the benefits of that scheme the provisions of the Act, 1952 are not applicable, after July 31, 1988. 9. The petitioner is directed to make application under Section 17 of the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 before Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for exemption from the operation of provisions of any scheme made under the Act, 1952, and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall dispose the application within a period of four months from the date of this order. 10. This writ petition is disposed of as indicated above.Petition disposed of as above. *******