Judgment :- The common question for consideration in all these Original Petitions was whether the employer was entitled to discontinue from the remittance of the provident fund contributions in excess of the rate prescribed by law, when the employer was contributing in excess of the statutory limits on the basis of the joint application filed by the employer and employees before the Provident Fund Authorities. 2. OP. Nos. 13968/01 and 14011/01 were filed by the North Malabar Gramin Bank Officers Association and the North Malabar Gramin Bank Employees’ Association for quashing Ext.P2 Circular issued by the North Malabar Gramin Bank directing the discontinuance of the payment of contributions in excess of the prescribed rate by the employer. OP Nos. 17647/01, 17855/01 and 17994/01 were filed by the South Malabar Gramin Bank Staff Association and the South Malabar Gramin Bank Officers Congress and also the Staff Union and others for quashing Ext.P2 Circular for discontinuing the contributions made by the management in excess of the statutory limits. The main relief prayed for in all these original Petitions was to direct the Management Bank to pay contribution at 12 per cent of the entire salary without taking into consideration of the salary ceiling and for directing the respondent management not to withdraw the consent given under paragraph 26(6) of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme. 1952 (for short, the Scheme). 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Management. 4. The Officers and employees of the South Malabar Gramin Bank and the North Malabar Gramin Bank were contributing to the Scheme in excess of the rate of contributions prescribed by law. The employer also was making equal contributions under the Scheme which was in excess of the statutory limits. On the basis of joint applications filed by the management and the employees before the concerned EPF authorities. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the Unions that by Ext.P2 notification, the management had withdrawn from the above agreement without notice to the employees and officers and had reduced and limited their share of contribution to the statutory limits and as the management had already consented for making contribution in excess of the statutory limits, they were not entitled to withdraw from the above agreement unilaterally and they were bound to continue to contribute the same amount. The learned counsel for the management submitted that due to the change of circumstances including the enhancement of salary of the employees and other benefits, and also as per the objection raised by the inspecting authorities. It had become impossible for the Bank to make such contributions in excess of the statutory limits and hence the management had issued the Circular informing all the employees that the above consent granted earlier shall stand withdrawn. It was further submitted that there was no statutory bar for the management to withdraw from the payment of the contribution in excess of the statutory limits and their liability was only to make the contribution upto the statutory limits. Paragraph 29 of the Scheme deals with the payment of the contributions to the Scheme. Sub-paragraphs 1 & 2 of paragraph 29 read as follows: 29. Contribution-(1) The contributions payable by the employer under the Scheme shall be at the rate of ten per cent of the basic wages, dearness allowance (including the cash value of any food concession) and retaining allowance (if any) payable to each employees to whom the Scheme applies. Provided that the above rate of contribution shall be twelve per cent in respect of any establishment or class of establishments which the Central Government may specify in the Official Gazette from time to time under the first proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 6 of the Act. (2) The Contribution payable by the employee under the Scheme shall be equal to the contribution payable by the employer in respect of such employee: Provided that in respect of any employee to whom the Scheme applies the contribution payable by him may, if he so desires be an amount exceeding ten per cent or twelve per cent, as the case may be of his basic wages dearness allowance and retaining allowance (if any) subject to the condition that the employer shall not be under an obligation to pay any contribution over and above his contribution payable under the Act. Sub-Paragraph (1) prescribes the rate of percentage of the salary to be made to the Fund by the employer towards contribution. Sub-paragraph (2) says that the contribution payable by the employee shall be equal to the contribution payable by the employer in respect of such employee. Sub-Paragraph (1) prescribes the rate of percentage of the salary to be made to the Fund by the employer towards contribution. Sub-paragraph (2) says that the contribution payable by the employee shall be equal to the contribution payable by the employer in respect of such employee. But the proviso says that the employees shall be at liberty to make contribution in excess of the rate prescribed under sub-para 1 but by such payment made by the employee in excess of the above statutory limits, the employer shall not be obliged to make contribution in excess of the statutory limits fixed under Sub para (1). Paragraph 26 of the Scheme deals with the classes of employees entitled and required to join the Fund. Sub-paragraph (1) says that every employee employed or in connection with the work of a factory or other establishment to which the scheme applies other than any excluded employee, shall be entitled to be required to become a member of the fund. Sub-paragraph (6) of Paragraph 26 says that the PF Authorities can permit the employee to enroll as a member and to contribute more than Rs.6,500/- of his pay per month, if he is already a member and an application is filed jointly by the employer and employee and the employer makes an undertaking in writing that the employer shall pay the administrative charges payable and shall comply with all statutory provisions in respect of such employee. Sub-para (6) of para 26 reads: (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this paragraph an Officer not below the rank of an Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner may on the joint request in writing of any employee of a factory or other establishment to which this Scheme applies and his employer enroll such employee as a member or allow him to contribute more than rupees six thousand and five hundred of his pay per month if he is already a member of the fund and thereupon such employee shall be entitled to the benefits and shall be subject to the conditions of the fund, provided that the employer gives an undertaking in writing that be shall pay the administrative charges payable and shall comply with all statutory provisions in respect of such employee. The above provision would make it clear that permission has to be granted by the PF authorities to the employee for enrolling as a member and for making the contribution on more than Rs.6500/- of his pay. Such permission has to be granted on the basis of a joint application by the employer and employee and an undertaking from the employer that the employer shall pay the administrative charges and shall comply with all statutory provisions regarding the employee. The above clause did not say that there should be any undertaking that the employer also should pay an equal amount of contribution. But it says that there should be an undertaking from the employer regarding the payment of administrative charges. The above provision allows the PF Authorities to permit the employee to make contribution and it does not empower the authorities to allow the employer also make such contributions in excess of the limits. 5. Paragraph 26(A) of the Scheme deals with the retention of membership under the Scheme. Para 26(A) reads: “26A. retention of membership (1): A member of the Fund shall continue to be member until he withdraws under paragraph 69 the amount standing to his credit in the Fund or is covered by a notification of exemption under Section 17 of the Act or an order of exemption under paragraph 27 or paragraph 27A. Explanantion: In the case of claim for refund by a member under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 69, the membership of the Fund shall be deemed to have been terminated from the date the payment is authorised to him by the authority specified in this behalf by Commissioner irrespective of the date of claim. (2) Every member employed as an employee other than an excluded employee in a factory or other establishment to which this scheme applies shall contribute to the Fund and the contribution shall be payable to the Fund in respect of him by the employer. Such contribution shall be in accordance with the rate specified in paragraph 29: Provided that subject to the provisions contained in sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 26 and in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 27, or sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 27A. Such contribution shall be in accordance with the rate specified in paragraph 29: Provided that subject to the provisions contained in sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 26 and in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 27, or sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 27A. Where the monthly pay of such a member exceeds six thousand and five hundred rupees the contribution payable by him, and in respect of him by the employer, shall be limited to the amounts payable on a monthly pay of six thousand and five hundred rupees including dearness allowance, retaining allowance (if any) and cash value of food concession. Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 26A says that a member shall continue to be a member until he withdraws under paragraph 69, the amount standing in his credit. Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 26A stipulates that a member shall contribute to the Fund and the same shall be remitted by the employer and the amount of contribution shall be in accordance with the rate specified under paragraph 29. As per paragraph 29, an employee would be at liberty to contribute at more than the prescribed rate of per centage, but the employer shall not be obliged to contribute in excess of the prescribed rate. The proviso to paragraph 26A(2) says that if the wages of the member exceeds the prescribed limit i.e. if it exceeds Rs. 6,500/- per mensem, the contribution payable by the employer and employee shall be limited to the amounts payable on a monthly pay of Rs. 6,500/-. When the wages of the member exceeds the prescribed wage limits, in view of the proviso to sub-para (6) paragraph 26, the PF Authorities can permit the employee to make contributions to the Fund in excess of the wage limits, if there is a joint application by the employer and employee and an undertaking by the employer that he shall meet the administrative charges. A consideration of all the above provisions would make it clear that the employer was not at all obliged to make contributions in excess of the statutory limits regarding the rate of contribution and also on the amount of contribution in excess of the wage limits. A consideration of all the above provisions would make it clear that the employer was not at all obliged to make contributions in excess of the statutory limits regarding the rate of contribution and also on the amount of contribution in excess of the wage limits. But when the employee is permitted to make contributions in excess of the prescribed wage limits, there shall be an undertaking by the employer that he shall pay the administrative charges payable and shall comply with the statutory provisions in respect of such employee under Sec. 26(6) of the Act. The joint application filed by the employee and the employer shall be only with respect to an undertaking by the employer that the employer shall pay the administrative charges payable. Even if there was any agreement between the respondent Bank and the employees regarding the payment of the contribution in excess of the statutory limits towards the share of the employer’s contribution, it was not covered by sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 26 or any provision under the Scheme. On the other hand, there is a specific direction under paragraph 26A (2), that the contribution payable by the employer shall be limited to the amount payable on the monthly pay of Rs.6,500/-. It appears that in the joint application, the employer Bank also had agreed to make contribution in excess of the statutory limits. As per the provisions of the Scheme, the EPF Authorities can grant permission to the employees alone to make contribution in excess of the wage limits. So even if the permission was granted by the EPF Authorities to the employer to make contributions in excess of the wage limits, it was unauthorised. 6. When the employer had agreed for making contribution in excess of the statutory limits, it did not mean that it was forever. When the salary was revised or when the ceiling limits had been enhanced or modified naturally the employer was also entitled to reconsider or revise or withdraw from its earlier decision. Hence, I do nor think that there was any prohibition under the Scheme for the management to withdraw from their earlier decision making the employer’s share of contribution in excess of the statutory limit or limiting the contribution to the statutory limits. 7. Hence, I do nor think that there was any prohibition under the Scheme for the management to withdraw from their earlier decision making the employer’s share of contribution in excess of the statutory limit or limiting the contribution to the statutory limits. 7. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that there was a prohibition under Section 12 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (for short, the EPF Act) from reducing the benefit which the employees were enjoying Section 12 of the Act reads. “12. Employer not to reduce wages, etc. No employer in relation to an establishment to which any Scheme or the insurance Scheme applies shall, by reason only of his liability for the payment of any contribution to the Fund or the Insurance Fund or any charges under this Act or the Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, reduce whether directly or indirectly the wages of any employee to whom the Scheme or the Insurance Scheme applies or the total quantum of benefits in the nature of old age pension, gratuity, provident fund or life insurance to which the employee is entitled under the terms of his employment, express or implied: Section 12 prohibit the employer from reducing the wages of the employee for avoiding his liability to pay contributions to the E.P.F. Scheme. It says that the employer should not reduce whether directly or indirectly, the benefits of the old age pension, gratuity, provident fund, life insurance etc. to which the employee was entitled under the terms of his employment express or implied. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a prohibition under Section 12 of the EPF Act that the employer should not reduce the benefits enjoyed by the employee either directly or indirectly and by reducing the employer’s share of contribution, the benefits which the employees were enjoying would be reduced. Section 12 imposes a prohibition from reducing the wages with an intent to, by reason only of his liability for the payment of contribution to the Scheme. It further says that the employer cannot reduce it directly or indirectly if by the terms of employment, the employee shall be entitled to such benefits. The petitioners had no case that the terms of employment was such that the employer had agreed to contribute to the EPF. Scheme in excess of the statutory limits. It further says that the employer cannot reduce it directly or indirectly if by the terms of employment, the employee shall be entitled to such benefits. The petitioners had no case that the terms of employment was such that the employer had agreed to contribute to the EPF. Scheme in excess of the statutory limits. There was no case for the petitioners that the wage was reduced or that the terms of employment included such a concession that the employer shall make contributions to the Scheme in excess of the statutory limits. In the absence of any such allegation I do not think that Section 12 can have any application. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Consolidated Crop Protection Pvt Ltd. V. V. Emma Chondroma (1977 LLD 114) and the decision of the Supreme Court in So Parkas Reeky v. Union of India (AIR 1981 SC 212). The facts of the above cases are not similar to the time facts of the present case. Those were cases where the employer had their own pensionary sheme and thereafter the employees were brought under the purview of the EPF Scheme of 1952. As per the earlier scheme of the management, the employees were entitled to more benefits and by bringing them within the purview of the EPF Scheme of 1952, there was reduction in certain benefits, it was in those circumstances, the High Court of Bombay and the Supreme Court held that the benefits which the employee were enjoying under the earlier scheme should not be reduced. The facts of the present cases are different and have no similarity and hence the above decision cannot have any application to the present case. 9. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Regional P.V. Commissioner, Bangalore v. Harihar Polyfibres (1992) 2 LLd 761). That also was a case where under an earlier scheme the establishment (employer) was making contribution at 10 per cent of the salary. 9. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Regional P.V. Commissioner, Bangalore v. Harihar Polyfibres (1992) 2 LLd 761). That also was a case where under an earlier scheme the establishment (employer) was making contribution at 10 per cent of the salary. But When the employees were brought under the EPF Scheme of 1952, the management reduced contribution to 8 per cent, the statutory limit, in the above circumstances, the Karnataka High Court placing reliance on the decision cited supra, held that such a reduction in the benefit already enjoyed by the workmen cannot be made. In the present case, the management was contributing to the EPF Scheme in excess of the statutory limits. But, due to the revision of pay and the enhancement of the ceiling limits, the employer was compelled to change and to stop the making of the contribution in excess of the statutory limits and by reducing and limiting the contribution at the statutory rate and hence Section 12 cannot have any application. 10. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that there was violation of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such the Notifications are liable to be quashed. Section 9A of the industrial Disputes Act does not impose an absolute bar in effecting any change in the conditions of service Section 9A reads. “9A. Notice of change: No employer who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any mater specified in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such change- (a) without giving to the workmen likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the nature of the change proposed to be effected: or (b) within twenty-one days of giving such notice: Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting any such change- (a) where the change is effected in pursuance of any settlement or award; or (b where the workman likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules. Revised Leave Rules. Civil Services, Regulations. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules. Revised Leave Rules. Civil Services, Regulations. Civilians in Defence Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate Government in the Official Gazette, apply.” Learned counsel for the management submitted that there was no change in the conditions of service by limiting the contribution from the part of the employer to the statutory limits and as such there was no violation of Section 9A of the industrial Disputes Act (for short, the I.D. Act). It was further submitted that even if it be treated as a change in the conditions of service, the circular would be a notice as contemplated by law to all the employees regarding the intention of the employer to reduce the contribution to the statutory limits. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in The Management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. V. Its Workmen (AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1858). The facts of the above case are entirely different from the facts of the present case. That was a case where the management of Assam Oil Refineries, Guwahati took an independent and voluntary decision to grant to the employees Assam compensatory allowance on the basis of the Central Government Circular which granted such allowance to all Central Government employees. Thereafter, there was another Notification by the Central Government by which it was provided that the employees in receipt of Assam Compensatory Allowance would be given the option to choose the house rent allowance or compensatory allowance, but they will not be entitled to draw both. Thereafter the Company unilaterally without giving any notice to the workmen withdraw the concession of the compensatory allowance. The workmen moved the Government for making reference to the tribunal because a dispute arose regarding the competency of the management to withdraw the concession granted by them unilaterally. There the Supreme Court held that the grant of Assam Compensatory Allowance was an implied condition of service and by withdrawing the above allowance, the employer sought to effect a substantial change which would affect the service conditions of he workmen. I do not think that the above decision can have any application in the present case. There the Supreme Court held that the grant of Assam Compensatory Allowance was an implied condition of service and by withdrawing the above allowance, the employer sought to effect a substantial change which would affect the service conditions of he workmen. I do not think that the above decision can have any application in the present case. Even if there is a change of service conditions, it is for the petitioners to raise an industrial dispute before the appropriate forum and this Court cannot treat it as an industrial dispute and take a decision. Hence, the above argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners also cannot be accepted. The management was competent to take a decision restricting their share of contribution of the EPF Scheme to the Statutory limits. The concession they had given by making the contribution at the same rate of the contribution made by the workmen i.e. in excess of the statutory limits was in violation of the provisions of the Scheme and hence has to be modified in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. Hence I do not find any grounds for interference with the Notification issued by the South and North Malabar Gramin Banks limiting their rate of contribution to the EPF Scheme at the statutory limits and all these Original Petitions are liable to be dismissed. In the result, all the Original Petitions are dismissed.