Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is filed by the Management of Standard Chartered Bank, to forbear the respondents from enforcing the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952 (for short EPF Act) and the Employees Provident Fund Scheme (EPF Scheme) framed thereunder in respect of the petitioner Bank. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 09.06.2009. Pending the writ petition, an interim direction as sought for was granted. 3. On notice from this Court, on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 a counter affidavit dated 31.08.2011 has been filed. 4. The stand of the Management was that they made a provision for five separate Provident Funds and created trust deed deemed to commence on 31.12.1954 which was called Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China Local Staff Provident Funds at Calcutta, Delhi, Madras, Amristar and Kanpur which will be applicable to its employees at all levels and its Provident Fund Scheme has been approved by the Income Tax Department. They have their own Pension Scheme, called as Standard Chartered Bank Employees' Pension Fund for clerical and subordinate staff, which is managed and administered by a Trust Deed made on 23.10.1978. The said Pension Scheme was also approved by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The American Express Bank Limited (for short AEBL), which was a scheduled bank was also in operation in India from 1921. It has got a Provident Fund Trust by name AEBL Indian Branches Provident fund. The Trust was created by the Trust Deed on 07.10.1948 and it was also recognised by Commissioner of Income Tax. 5. It was further submitted that prior to February 2000, the EPF Act was made applicable only to banks who are having branches in one state and not the multi-state bank. By the notification dated 25.02.2000, the Act was made applicable to all banks other than Nationalised Banks. By virtue of this Notification, AEBL was brought under the purview of the Act. It covered all its employees under the EPF Scheme from 01.03.2000. By reference to the existing EPF Scheme, the AEBL Indian Branches Provident Fund had sought for an exemption. By an order dated, 11.01.2008 relaxation was given by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mumbai subject to certain conditions. Consequent to this order, from 01.07.2008, the AEBL started making contributions to their own PF Trust. 6. By reference to the existing EPF Scheme, the AEBL Indian Branches Provident Fund had sought for an exemption. By an order dated, 11.01.2008 relaxation was given by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mumbai subject to certain conditions. Consequent to this order, from 01.07.2008, the AEBL started making contributions to their own PF Trust. 6. After the issuance of notification during February 2000 extending the provisions of the EPF Act and EPF Scheme to non-nationalised banks, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.No.31394 of 2006 challenging the notification. It was held by a single Judge and thereafter, by a Division Bench that the notification was invalid. Subsequently, the AEBL got merged with petitioner bank during March 2008. In respect of erstwhile employees of AEBL, by virtue of amalgamation, became employees of the petitioner Bank and they were also making contributions to the AEBL PF Trust from 01.01.2009 and thereafter, by an order of the Division Bench dated 24.03.2008, contributions in respect of those employees are being made to Standard Chartered Bank India Staff Provident Fund Trust from 01.04.2009. This was also duly intimated to the EPF Department. Since the Standard Chartered Bank India Staff Provident Fund and Standard Bank Employees' Pension Fund were administered from Chennai, all matters relating to retirement benefits of employees of Standard Chartered Bank are being carried out only at Chennai. Therefore, they have filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents not to demand contribution in respect of employees whose salaries have exceeded beyond Rs.6500/-and also to refrain from invoking coercive proceedings against the bank. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it was stated that American Express Bank Ltd., was amalgamated with the petitioner as per direction of Reserve Bank of India. The said Bank was already covered under the EPF Act, whereas the petitioner is not a covered establishment under the Act and its trust fund is having recognition under the Income Tax. In paragraph 9 of the counter, it was averred as follows:- "9. I submit that the averment made in para 9 of the affidavit is denied. As M/s.American Express bank Ltd., has got amalgamated with the petitioner, the establishment has violated condition No.29 of revised 31 condition specified in para 27AA of the EPF Scheme 1952. In paragraph 9 of the counter, it was averred as follows:- "9. I submit that the averment made in para 9 of the affidavit is denied. As M/s.American Express bank Ltd., has got amalgamated with the petitioner, the establishment has violated condition No.29 of revised 31 condition specified in para 27AA of the EPF Scheme 1952. Consequent on amalgamation, the American Express Bank Ltd., list is entity and therefore the relaxation granted to it under Para 79 need to be revoked in terms of condition No.29 of Para 27AA of the EPF Scheme. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice to explain why the relaxation should not be withdrawn on this ground. The reply to the show cause notice was not found satisfactory and accordingly the relaxation was withdrawn with effective from 01.01.2008. There is no reason given for violation of statutory condition No.29 which was accepted by M/s.American Express Bank Ltd., subject to which interim exemption was granted under Para 79 of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952. The establishment having violated condition No.29 cannot be said to be aggrieved for revocation of exemption. The petitioner is only a successor in interest to M/s.American Express Bank Ltd., stepping into the shoes of the said establishment and cannot claim any independent right." 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench reported in 2008 (2) L.L.N.932 [Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd., Chennai v. Government of India, New Delhi and others],wherein this Court in paragraphs 15 and 16 held as follows:- "15. We are unable to sustain the validity of the notification, whereunder all the banks except nationalised banks have been brought under the purview of provident fund scheme notwithstanding the fact that all the banks having branches in more than one State have their own provident fund schemes and pension schemes which are atleast comparable with the benefits available under the Act and the Scheme made thereunder. 16. ...The net result of the above would be that the banks having branches in more than one State would continue to be governed by their own provident fund schemes and pension schemes and would not be coming with the coverage of Employees Provident Fund Scheme under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952." 9. 16. ...The net result of the above would be that the banks having branches in more than one State would continue to be governed by their own provident fund schemes and pension schemes and would not be coming with the coverage of Employees Provident Fund Scheme under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952." 9. Though the matter was taken on appeal to the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.12726 of 2009, the Supreme Court vide its order dated 27.08.2010 dismissed the appeal with costs. 10. In respect of other argument that prior to the merger, the AEBL was having coverage by the provisions of the Act and in respect of those employees, the Act should continue to cover them, the petitioner also relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court reported in 1981 1 LLN 202 [United Western Bank Ltd., v. Central Provident Fund Commissioner and others]wherein similar contention was reject. In paragraph 14, it was held as follows:- "14. Sri Pathak, appears for the fourth respondent, which is the United Western Bank Officers' Organisation. He has supported the arguments of Sri Sethna and Sri Dharap. He also suggested that the applicability of the Act should be continued to the branches which are situated within the State of Maharashtra. It is not possible to accept this suggestion because it will amount to rewriting the notification issued by the Central Government under S.1 (3)(b), which we have no jurisdiction to do." 11. In view of the above, the writ petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.