JUDGMENT : A.P. SHAH, J. 1. A very short question arises in this petition as to the correct meaning of Section 17(3)(b) of the Employees, Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act 19 of 1952). 2. The petitioner is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Respondent No. 2 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having their office all over India. Petitioner claims to be the representative union of the employees of respondent No. 2 employed in their establishment in Bombay. The Provident Fund Act became applicable sometime in the year 1952. The Act was obviously applicable to the establishment of respondent No. 2 in Mumbai. In about 1986 petitioner and respondent No. 2 had jointly applied for exemption of the provisions of the Act on the ground that the benefits being accorded by respondent No. 2 to their employees were more than that what was available to the employees under the said Act. It was pointed out that respondent No. 2 was effecting deductions amounting to 8.33% of the total salary of the workmen without any ceiling i.e. though the ceiling was fixed by the said Act at the salary of Rs. 2,500/- the company was effecting the said deduction without ceiling even beyond the salary limit at the actual salaries drawn by the workmen. It was obvious that the voluntary scheme was more beneficial to the employees. Exemption was accordingly granted u/s 17(1) of the Act. 3. It appears from the record that with effect from December 31, 1990, respondent No. 2, imposed a ceiling on the salary unit for the purposes of provident fund contribution as it existed on December 31, 1990. The petitioner maintained that once the exemption is granted to the establishment u/s 17(1) of the Act, the concerned employer cannot alter the exemption so as to reduce the total quantum of benefits in the provident fund without taking leave of the appropriate Government. Incidentally it may be mentioned that by intimation bearing No. S-35011/9/88-SS-II published by the Government of India in the Official Gazettee on May 17, 1989, the rate of provident fund contribution was increased from 8.33% to 10% for certain industries notified in the Schedule. Incidentally it may be mentioned that by intimation bearing No. S-35011/9/88-SS-II published by the Government of India in the Official Gazettee on May 17, 1989, the rate of provident fund contribution was increased from 8.33% to 10% for certain industries notified in the Schedule. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2's establishment in Mumbai was covered by the said notification and therefore, the provident fund was liable to be deducted at the rate of 10%. It seems that the petitioner addressed several letters to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner i.e., respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No. 2 during 1991 and 1992 but to no avail. Finally, the petitioner issued a notice through Advocate on March 10, 1992 calling upon respondent No. 1 to direct respondent No. 2 to effect deductions to provident fund contribution on their current total wages and contribute equal amount without any ceiling of the salary of the employees concerned and further increase the rate of such deduction from 8.33% to 10% from the date of coming into force of the said notification. To this there was no reply from respondent No. 1. 4. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3365 of 1992 before this Court and the same came to be disposed of by order dated September 14, 1992 whereby the 1st respondent was directed to issue show cause notice u/s 7-A of the Act to respondent No. 2 to pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks. Pursuant to the said order, respondent No. 1 issued show cause notice to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 took up a defence that the notification dated May 17, 1989 was not applicable to the establishment of respondent No. 1 since textile industry was specifically excluded from the scope of the said notification. Secondly respondent No. 2 contended that imposing a ceiling does not violate Section 17(3)(b) of the Act in as much as the employees have continued to receive the same quantum of benefit as prior to the imposition of the ceiling on salary. 5. By order dated February 17, 1993, respondent No. 1 rejected the claim of the petitioner regarding payment of 10% contribution both from the employer and employees' salary on the ground that the notification dated May 17, 1989 is not applicable to the establishment of respondent No. 2. 5. By order dated February 17, 1993, respondent No. 1 rejected the claim of the petitioner regarding payment of 10% contribution both from the employer and employees' salary on the ground that the notification dated May 17, 1989 is not applicable to the establishment of respondent No. 2. By passing a further order dated April 5, 1993, respondent No. 1 rejected the petitioner's contention that there was breach of Section 17(3)(b) of the Act by reason of imposition of ceiling on the salary. Both these orders are challenged in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The main dispute relates to the meaning and interpretation of Section 17(3)(b) of the Act. The prayer based on the notification dated May 17, 1989 was not pressed before this Court. However, it is contended that the employer has committed breach of Section 17(3)(b) of the Act by imposing a ceiling on salary. Before provisions of Section 17(3)(b) are construed, it may be borne in mind that every establishment which falls within the purview of the Provident Fund Act, the statutory scheme of 1952 automatically applies. Section 17(1) of the Act confers power upon the appropriate Government to exempt any establishment from all or any of the provisions of any scheme if, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, rules of its provident fund with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable than those specified in Section 6 and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits which on the whole are not less favourable to the employees than the benefits provided under the Act or under scheme. Thus, where a voluntary scheme is in existence or later on framed by the employers appears to be more beneficial to the employee, it is permissible to the appropriate Government to grant exemption from all or any other provisions of the statutory scheme. When the provisions of the Act making statutory scheme compulsory are read along with the provisions to grant exemption from the statutory scheme under certain circumstances, the intention of the legislature appears to be clear. Where inadequate benefits were there, the legislature desired that the minimum benefit of provident fund ought to be in the form of contribution at 8% on either side. Where inadequate benefits were there, the legislature desired that the minimum benefit of provident fund ought to be in the form of contribution at 8% on either side. Where therefore the establishments were giving benefit of provident fund which was less than the statutory scheme envisages the establishments were bound to follow the statutory scheme. Where, however, better managed companies and establishments were already in a position to offer better and more benefits to their employees in the form of provident fund and other schemes like gratuity and old age pension, the intention of the legislature in enacting Section 17(3)(b) was that such better and more benefits should not be taken away without the previous permission of the Central Government. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that on true interpretation of Section 17(3)(b) of the Act, the employer cannot impose a ceiling on the salary contrary to the existing scheme and thus take away from the employees substantial benefit which they were enjoying due to the fact that under the voluntary scheme there was no ceiling on the salary. Section 17(3)(b) of the Act reads as follows: "17. Power of exempted Where in respect of any person or class of persons employed in an establishment an exemption is granted under this section from the operation of all or any of the provisions of any Scheme (whether such exemption has been granted to the establishment wherein such person or class of persons is employed, or to the person or class of persons as such), the employer in relation to such establishment: (a)...... (b) shall not, at any time after the exemption, without the leave of the Central Government, reduce the total quantum of benefits in the nature of pension, gratuity or provident fund to which any such person or class of persons was entitled at the time of the exemption." 8. Under the above provisions, the employer is prohibited from reducing the total quantum of benefits in the nature of pension, gratuity or provident fund without the leave of the Central Government. This Section presupposes that whatever benefits were available to the employee either in the nature of pension, gratuity or provident fund on the date when the exemption was granted, express or implied, this benefit is not to be reduced in any manner without the previous permission of the Central Government. This Section presupposes that whatever benefits were available to the employee either in the nature of pension, gratuity or provident fund on the date when the exemption was granted, express or implied, this benefit is not to be reduced in any manner without the previous permission of the Central Government. Thus whether any benefit is available in an establishment under the Voluntary Scheme, the total quantum available under the said scheme cannot be denied to the employee without the prior permission of the central Government. Section 17(3)(b) uses the expression total quantum benefits. Therefore, where under the voluntary scheme the employees are entitled to contribution from both at the rate of 8.33 % without any ceiling, it is not permissible for the employer to impose a ceiling so as to reduce the total quantum of benefits under the existing scheme. It was argued on behalf of Respondent No. 2 that even after the imposition of ceiling there is no reduction in the amount of contribution made by the employer and therefore, it cannot be said that there is reduction in the total quantum of benefits. It is not possible to accept this argument for simple reason that the word "total quantum, of benefits" do not and cannot mean only actual benefit in rupee, anna and pie but it means the benefits whether one or more available under the scheme. Under the voluntary scheme there was no ceiling on the salary. Thus the employees were entitled to contribute more than Rs. 2,500/- which was the ceiling fixed at the relevant time under the statutory scheme. This benefit cannot be taken away by the employer without the prior permission of the Central Government. Respondent No. 1 has completely ignored the provisions of Section 17(3)(b) of the Act in rejecting the application made by the Union. 9. On behalf of the respondents reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in R.K. Mohta and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1992) 46 DLT 344 : (1992) 2 LLJ 244 . There the High Court was considering the case of the employees of a private school. Prior to the applicability of the Act, contribution towards provident fund was being made at the rate of 8.33%, but after the introduction of the scheme, it was reduced to 6.25%. There the High Court was considering the case of the employees of a private school. Prior to the applicability of the Act, contribution towards provident fund was being made at the rate of 8.33%, but after the introduction of the scheme, it was reduced to 6.25%. It was argued that by virtue of Section 12 of the Act, the same could not be reduced. It was submitted that the reduction of rate would amount to reduction in total quantum of benefits which was being paid to the employees. The High Court held that prior to the application of the Act, the school was contributing only on the salary and part of the D.A. But thereafter the whole amount of D.A. is taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the provident fund. Even by reducing the rate of 8.33% to 6.25% there has been no reduction in the total quantum of benefit. According to the Delhi High Court expression "total quantum" cannot be equated to the rate of contribution. The petition was therefore dismissed. I am unable to agree with the view taken by the aforesaid view of the Delhi High Court. This Court has taken a contrary view in Consolidated Crop Production (P) Ltd. vs. V. Hema Chandrarao, 1977 LIC 251 . It was held by DESHMUKH, J. that the petitioner cannot claim contribution below 10% which was the former contribution under the voluntary scheme and it would also follow that until the reduction by an appropriate authority has been granted by the commissioner, the employees cannot also contribute less than what they were doing earlier. The view taken by this Court is followed by the Karnataka High Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Harihar Polyfibres, 1995 (3) LLJ 862. Thus it was clearly impermissible for respondent No. 2 to have imposed a ceiling when in fact there was no ceiling under the voluntary scheme. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a) only so far as imposing ceiling on the employee's salary is concerned. No order as to costs.