JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. On August 29, 1981 relaxation/ exemption was granted to the original petitioner by the Appropriate Government u/s 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Relaxation/exemption continued for about 10 years. By communication dated October 14, 1991 the original petitioner was informed that the said relaxation stands withdrawn with effect from October 1, 1991 as the original petitioner failed to submit various returns and to constitute the Board of Trustees as per the rules. The original petitioner was also directed to implement the provisions of the, statutory scheme in respect of the employees of its establishment. It seems that the said communication was challenged by one of the Employees' Union before Aurangabad Bench vide Writ Petition No. 978/1992. However, the said writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn on April 8, 1994. Despite withdrawal of the said writ petition, it seems that the original petitioner did not act on this communication. It was only on September 26, 1994 that a notice of change was given by the original petitioner which was challenged by the Union before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur, which quashed the notice of change by award dated October 25, 2002. Thereafter the original petitioner challenged the said order by preferring Writ Petition No. 2751/2003 and by judgment dated September; 18, 2008 the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur, which judgment has given rise to these three Letters Patent Appeals. 3. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that u/s 17(3)(b) of the EPF Act once an exemption is granted by the Appropriate Government, it shall not, without the leave of the Central Government, reduce the total quantum of benefits in the nature of pension, gratuity, or provident fund etc. However, in the present case, the original petitioner did not obtain leave of the Central Government before acting on the communication dated October 14, 1991 by issuing notice of change dated September 26, 1998. In this respect the learned Counsel for the appellants have also relied on judgment of the Hon'ble single Judge of this Court in Madura Coats Employees Union Vs. In this respect the learned Counsel for the appellants have also relied on judgment of the Hon'ble single Judge of this Court in Madura Coats Employees Union Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Others, (1999) 1 LLJ 928 wherein in paras 6,7 and 8 the learned single Judge dealt with the meaning and interpretation of Section 17(3)(b) of the said Act. At the end of para 8, the learned single Judge observed that the benefit cannot be taken away by the employer without the prior permission of the Central Government and that respondent No. 1 therein completely ignored the provisions of Section 17(3)(b) of the Act. 4. In the judgment impugned before us, the learned single Judge has dealt with this aspect in para 10. He has found that the decision in the case of Madura Coats Employees Union (supra) does not apply to the present case. The learned single Judge has observed that here is a case where the relaxation/exemption was withdrawn. It may be noted that in Madura Coats Employees Union there was no contention that the relaxation/exemption was withdrawn at any time. So even on facts the case of Madura Coats Employees Union differs and would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, we find that no interference in the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is called for. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.