JUDGMENT : Paresh Upadhyay, J. In this group of petitions, which are filed by both-employees and employers, the point which fall for consideration before this Court is, whether an employer can be compelled to pay in excess of his statutory liability towards contribution in the provident fund of an employee under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('the Act' for short). 2. Heard Mr. Girish Patel, learned senior advocate with Mr. Mawlankar learned advocate and, learned advocates Mr. P.J. Kanabar, Mr. A.J. Shastri, and Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, on behalf of employees. On behalf of employers, Mr. K.M. Patel, learned senior advocate with Mr. Varun K. Patel, learned advocate, as well as Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned advocate, have made their submissions. On behalf of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, submissions are made by Mr. N.K. Majmudar and Ms. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocates. 3. Learned counsel for the employees have, in substance, stated that, from the beginning, the management of the Banks have provided for the benefit of Provident Fund to its officers and other employees. The management of the Banks and employees, by joint request in writing to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, agreed for payment of provident fund even by those employees who were getting more than stipulated emoluments, per month, which at present is Rs. 6500/-. Suddenly, this benefit was unilaterally withdrawn by the management. The said benefit, had become a part of service condition, which was withdrawn without any notice to the employees. The employees affected, protested to the Management, but the Management did not accept the demand of the employees. It is this action on the part of the management of the Banks, which is the subject matter of the petitions which are filed by employees. 4. The case of the management of the Banks, in the petitions filed by them, in substance is to the effect that, the request of the management to discontinue the erroneous remittance of employer's contribution, in excess of its statutory liability has been rejected by the Regional Provident Commissioner and thereby the management of the Bank is required to continue to remit employer's contribution in excess of its statutory liability. It is contended that this is done by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, on the basis of erroneous reading of Section 12 of the Act and it is further contended by the management that Section 12 of the Act will not be attracted in this case. It is further contended that the conjoint reading of the provisions of the Act and Scheme framed there under, shows that even in the cases where the employee is desirous of and permitted to remit contribution in excess of statutory ceiling, which at present is Rs. 6500/-, the liability of the employer to pay employers' contribution is restricted to the said statutory ceiling. As against that, under erroneous and mistaken belief, the management of the Banks was remitting contribution equal to the contribution of employees far in excess of statutory ceiling, as if it was required to make contribution of employer equal to the contribution of employee, even if, it is beyond statutory ceiling. It is indicated that even in respect of exempted employees, this had continued. It is pointed out that the wages of the employees increased manifold, rate of contribution also increased, statutory ceiling which was Rs. 1600/- in 1982 also gradually increased upto Rs. 6500/-. This had the spiraling effect on Bank's liability, which compelled the Bank to request the authorities for discontinuance of the practise of remitting contribution beyond statutory requirement and bring it to the statutory limit, which was denied by the authorities which is challenged in the petitions filed by the management of the Banks. It is also claimed by the management of the Banks that the amount which they have contributed in excess of their legal obligation be permitted to be recovered from the employees. 5. In this background, Mr. Girish Patel, learned senior counsel for the employees mainly contended that, in view of Section 6 of the Act, read with paragraphs 26 and 29 of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (‘the Scheme’ for short), the action of the employer of denying to continue to contribute his share, which was already beyond the mandatory requirement, is illegal. Without prejudice to the above contention, it is also contended that, in any case, it could not have been resorted to, without approval of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Without prejudice to the above contention, it is also contended that, in any case, it could not have been resorted to, without approval of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. It is further contended that, the reduction of contribution in provident fund would result in variance in condition of the service, to the disadvantage of the workman and therefore, those employees, who were workmen within the definition of the Industrial Disputes Act, in their case, it could not have been resorted to, without giving notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also contended that, since the practise of contributing more towards provident fund by the employer, was continuing since years, it ought not to have been reduced without giving hearing to the concerned officer, irrespective of he not being ‘workman’ within the definition of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Lastly, it is contended that, in any case, no recovery of alleged excess payment towards contribution of the management be permitted, for the period from 1989 to 1995, since the employees were not responsible for the same in any manner. Mr. P.J. Kanabar, learned advocate appearing for employees, over and above adopting the arguments put forward by Mr. Girish Patel, learned senior counsel, has further contended that there was consent of the chairman of the bank, to have the arrangement of making more contributions and therefore factually the action of the bank of going back to its mandatory liability only, be interfered with. Mr. A.J. Shastri and Mr.Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocates, appearing for employees have adopted the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel Mr. Girish Patel. On behalf of employees, reliance is placed on the following decisions : (i) 1981 (1) LLJ 79 (SC) - Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India and another. (ii) 1977 (1) LLJ 114 - Consolidated Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd. v. V. Hema Chandra Rao. (iii) 1992 (2) LLJ 761 - Regional P.F. Commissioner, Bangalore v. Harihar Polyfibres. 6. On the other hand, on behalf of the employers - the management of the banks, submissions are made by learned senior advocate Mr. Kanubhai M. Patel and learned advocate Mr. Apurva S. Vakil. According to them, the Scheme of the Act does not contemplate liability of the employer beyond contribution of ten per cent or twelve per cent, as the case may be, and not beyond the limit of emoluments of Rs. Kanubhai M. Patel and learned advocate Mr. Apurva S. Vakil. According to them, the Scheme of the Act does not contemplate liability of the employer beyond contribution of ten per cent or twelve per cent, as the case may be, and not beyond the limit of emoluments of Rs. 5000/- then prevailing or Rs. 6500, which is now prevailing. Reliance is placed on behalf of employers on the following decisions : (i) (2011) 9 SCC 620 - Marathwada Gramin Bank Karamchari Sanghatana and Another v. Management of Marathwada Gramin Bank and Others (SC). (ii) 2005 (1) LLJ 229 - North Malabar Gramin Bank Officers’ Association and Another v. Reserve Bank of India and Others (Kerala High Court). (iii) 1992 (1) CLR 775 - R.K. Mohta & Ors. v. U.O.I. & Ors. (Delhi High Court). (iv) Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1335 of 1996 and cognate matters dated 22.07.1997, which was against the grant/refusal of interim relief in this group of petitions. Reference to this order of the Division Bench of this Court is also made to point out that during pendency of these petitions, interim arrangement was worked out by this Court and the same has continued for all these years. Para 9 of the said order is relevant which reads as under : “9. In view of the above facts and the controversy between the parties and the nature of interim relief sought which is in the nature of final relief, we are of the view that taking into consideration the balance of convenience and the interest of both the parties the order of interim relief granted in Special Civil Application No.3707/1995 and the order of refusing to grant interim relief in Special Civil Application No.3195/95 are to be set aside and in their place the following order is to be substituted. “The respondent-Banks namely Jamnagar-Rajkot Gramin Bank, Junagadh-Amreli Gramin Bank and Surendranagar-Bhavnagar Gramin Bank should continue to credit Rs. 500/- (five hundred) per month in the Provident Fund Accounts opened under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, in respect of their employees/officers who are drawing pay of Rs. 5000/- p.m., or more. The said banks should also open separate account in their Own Bank for crediting the amount exceeding Rs. 500/- (five hundred) per month in the Provident Fund Accounts opened under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, in respect of their employees/officers who are drawing pay of Rs. 5000/- p.m., or more. The said banks should also open separate account in their Own Bank for crediting the amount exceeding Rs. 500/- and up to 10% of the monthly pay of their employees/officers drawing pay of more than Rs. 5000/- per month. On the said amounts credited in the separate account as directed above the Bank should given compound interest at the rate of interest payable on the provident fund under “The Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952”. In case if the petitioner happened ultimately succeed in the main petitions of SCA No.3191/95 and SCA no.3707/96 then the amount credited by the respondents Banks in the separate accounts as directed above should be paid on the provident fund accounts of the employees/officers. In case if the petitioner happened to fail in establishing their claim in the petitions then the Banks are to get the amount lying in the said separate accounts opened as per the above directions.” The bank should also file a statement every month in the petitions showing what amounts are credited and in whose name in the said accounts. The above arrangement is to be carried out from July 1997. Liberty to apply in case of difficulty.“ 7. Learned Advocate Mr. Vakil submitted that the employees are not deprived of any of their legal rights and there is no change in service condition which may require any hearing or any notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He also contended that, even the right of the employees to contribute more than the statutory limit was dependent on the consent of the employer, as is clear from the language of paragraph 26(6) of the Scheme and therefore, the employer could not be directed to contribute more than the statutory requirement. 8. On behalf of the authorities of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, stand is taken supporting the case of the employees, as indicated from the affidavit-in-reply filed in this group of petitions, the substance of which is that the employer is estopped from reducing the payment from higher than the mandatory requirement to that of mandatory requirement. In this regard reference is made to section 12 of the Act. 9. In this regard reference is made to section 12 of the Act. 9. Before dealing with the rival contentions raised by the respective parties, relevant Sections of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Paragraphs of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 are required to be noted, which are as under: “Sec.6 of the Act, 1952 : Contributions and matters which may be provided for in Schemes.- The contribution which shall be paid by the employer to the Fund shall be [ten per cent.] of the basic wages, [dearness allowance and retaining allowance (if any)] for the time being payable to each of the employees (whether employed by him directly or by or through a contractor), and the employees' contribution shall be equal to the contribution payable by the employer in respect of him and may, [if any employee so desires, be an amount exceeding [ten per cent.] 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 this section]: Provided that in its application to any establishment or class of establishments which the Central Government, after making such inquiry as it deems fit, may, by notification in the Official Gazette specify, this section shall be subject to the modification that for the words [“ten per cent.”], at both the places where they occur, the words [“twelve per cent.”] shall be substituted: Provided further that where the amount of any contribution payable under this Act involves a fraction of a rupees, the Scheme may provide for the rounding off of such fraction to the nearest rupee, half of a rupee or quarter of a rupee. Sec.12 of the Act, 1952 - Employer not to reduce wages, etc. Sec.12 of the Act, 1952 - 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.” Para 2(f) of the Scheme, 1952 : “excluded employee” means- (i) an employee who, having been a member of the Fund, withdrew the full amount of his accumulations in the Fund under [clause (a) or (c) of] sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph (69);] (ii) an employee whose pay at the time he is otherwise entitled to become a member of the Fund, exceeds [six thousand and five hundred rupees] per month; Explanation.- 'Pay' includes basic wages with dearness allowance, [retaining allowance (if any)] and cash value of food concessions] admissible thereon;] Para 26 of the Scheme, 1952 : Classes of employees entitled and required to join the fund.- (1)(a) Every employee employed in or in connection with the work of a factory or other establishment to which this Scheme applies, other than an excluded employee, shall be entitled and required to become a member of the Fund from the day this paragraph comes into force in such factory or other establishment. (b) Every employee employed in or in connection with the work of a factory or other establishment to which this Scheme applies, other than an excluded employee, shall also be entitled and required to become a member of the fund from the day this paragraph comes into force in such factory or other establishment if on the date of such coming into force, such employee is a subscriber to a provident fund maintained in respect of the factory or other establishment, or in respect of any other factory or establishment (to which the Act applies) under the same employer: Provided that where the Scheme applies to a factory or other establishment on the expiry or cancellation of an order of exemption under section 17 of the Act, every employee who but for the exemption would have become and continued as a member of the fund, shall become a member of the fund forthwith. (2) After this paragraph comes into force in a factory or other establishment, every employee employed in or in connection with the work of that factory or establishment, other than an excluded employee, who has not become a member already shall also be entitled and required to become a member of the fund from the date of joining the factory or establishment. (3) An excluded employee employed in or in connection with the work of a factory or other establishment to which this Scheme applies shall, on ceasing to be such an employee, be entitled and required to become a member of the fund from the date he ceased to be such employee. (4) On re-election of an employee or a class of employees exempted under paragraph 27 or paragraph 27A to join the fund or on the expiry or cancellation of an order under that paragraph, every employee shall forthwith become a member thereof. (5) Every employee who is a member of a private provident fund maintained in respect of an exempted factory or other establishment and who but for exemption would have become and continued as a member of the fund shall, on joining a factory or other establishment to which this Scheme applies, become a member of the fund forthwith. (5) Every employee who is a member of a private provident fund maintained in respect of an exempted factory or other establishment and who but for exemption would have become and continued as a member of the fund shall, on joining a factory or other establishment to which this Scheme applies, become a member of the fund forthwith. (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 [six thousand five hundred rupees] 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 condition of the fund, provided that the employer gives an undertaking in writing that he shall pay the administrative charges payable and shall comply with all statutory provisions in respect of such employee. Para 26A of the Scheme, 1952 : 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. Explanation.- 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. (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, where the monthly pay of such a member exceeds [six thousand 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]. Para 26B of the Scheme, 1952 : Resolution of doubts.- If any question arises whether an employee is entitled or required to become or continue as a member, or as regards the date from which he is so entitled or required to become a member, the decision, thereon of the Regional Commissioner shall be final: Provided that no decision shall be given unless both the employer and the employee have been heard. Para 27 of the Scheme, 1952 : Exemption of an employee.- (1) A Commissioner may by order and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order exempt from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Scheme an employee to whom the Scheme applies on receipt of application in Form I from such an employee: Provided that such an employee is entitled to benefits in the nature of Provident Fund, gratuity or old age pension according to the rules of the factory or other establishment and such benefits separately or jointly are on the whole not less favourable than the benefits provided under the Act and the Scheme. (2) Where an employee is exempted as aforesaid, the employer shall in respect of such employee maintain such account, submit such returns, provided such facilities for inspection, pay such inspection charges and invest provident fund collections in such manner as the Central Government may direct. (3) An employee exempted under sub-paragraph (1) may by an application to the Commissioner make a declaration that he shall become a member of the Fund. (3) An employee exempted under sub-paragraph (1) may by an application to the Commissioner make a declaration that he shall become a member of the Fund. (4) No employee shall be granted exemption or permitted to apply out of exemption more than once on each account. Para 27A of the Scheme, 1952 : Exemption of a class of employees.- (1) [The appropriate Government] may by order and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order exempt from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Scheme any class of employees to whom the Scheme applies: Provided that such class of employee is entitled to benefits in the nature of provident fund, gratuity or old age pension according to the rules of the [factory or other establishment] and such benefits separately or jointly or on the whole not less favourable than the benefit provided under the Act and this Scheme. (2) Where any class of employees is exempted as aforesaid, the employer shall in respect of such class of employees maintain such account, submit such returns, provide such facilities for inspection, pay such inspection charges and invest provident fund collections in such manner as the Central Government may direct. (3) A class of employees exempted under sub paragraph (1) or the majority of employees constituting such class may by an application to the Commissioner make a declaration that the class desires to join the Fund and thereupon such class of employees shall become members of the Fund. Para 29 of the Scheme, 1952 : 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 employee 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-section (1) of section 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. (3) The contributions shall be calculated on the basis of [basic wages, dearness allowance (including the cash value of any food concession) and retaining allowance (if any)] actually drawn during the whole month whether paid on daily, weekly, fortnightly or monthly basis. (4) Each contribution shall be calculated to [the nearest rupee, 50 paise or more to be counted as the next higher rupee and fraction of a rupee less than 50 paise to be ignored].” “Sec.9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : Notice of change.- No employer, who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter 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 workmen likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service 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.” 10. On conjoint reading of above Sections of the Act and Paragraphs of the Scheme, the following four categories can be carved out of the employees to appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties. On conjoint reading of above Sections of the Act and Paragraphs of the Scheme, the following four categories can be carved out of the employees to appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties. (i) Employees whose emoluments are upto Rs. 6500 (as per the limit in force at present) and whose contribution is as per requirement i.e. ten per cent or twelve per cent, as the case may be. In case of this category, the employer's contribution would be ten per cent or twelve per cent, as the case may be, of the emoluments, which is not more than Rs. 6500. (ii) The second category of the employees is that where the employees get emoluments upto Rs. 6500/- but he intends to contribute more percentage than statutory requirement. In such cases though he may contribute more percentage but the liability of the employer is limited to ten per cent or twelve per cent, as the case may be. (iii) The third category is where the emoluments of an employee is beyond Rs. 6500, which would have rendered him ineligible to be continued in the Scheme, but he, as per the rules, is permitted to be retained in the scheme and continues to contribute as per rules which would be ten per cent or twelve per cent of the amount of his emoluments which is more than Rs. 6500, but in that case, the liability of the employer would be limited to stipulated percentage of Rs. 6500. (iv) The fourth category is of such employees who were drawing emoluments exceeding Rs. 6500 and thereby who were excluded employees, but, who is permitted to join the scheme and start contributing to the fund. Such employees cannot contribute less than the prescribed percentage, creating an eventuality, where, say for example, an employee with emoluments of Rs. 7,000 contributes ten per cent or twelve per cent, as the case may be, and second eventuality of this category is that such employee, by his volition, contributes more than ten per cent or twelve per cent of his emoluments. Whether such type of employees can claim that the contribution of the employer in provident fund in their case should be on the basis of Rs. 7000, i.e. over and above the statutory ceiling of Rs. Whether such type of employees can claim that the contribution of the employer in provident fund in their case should be on the basis of Rs. 7000, i.e. over and above the statutory ceiling of Rs. 6500, and further that, if the said employee contributes, say fifteen percentage, whether the employer should also be expected to contribute fifteen percentage. The controversy raised is with regard to this category. To be more precise, the first eventuality of this last category i.e. an employee in whose case the emoluments are more than Rs. 6500, in his case, whether the employer can be directed to contribute ten per cent or twelve per cent of an amount exceeding Rs. 6500, which is statutory requirement. 11. At this juncture, reference may be made to the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in case of Marathwada Gramin Bank Karamchari Sanghatana and Another (supra), where the observations of Hon’ble the Supreme Court are as under : “28. The Respondent Bank is under an obligation to pay provident fund to its employees in accordance with the provisions of the statutory scheme. The respondent Bank cannot be compelled to pay the amount in excess of its statutory liability for all times to come just because the respondent Bank formed its own trust and started paying provident fund in excess of its statutory liability for some time. The appellants are certainly entitled to provident fund according to statutory liability of the respondent Bank. The respondent Bank never discontinued its contribution towards provident fund according to the provisions of the statutory scheme.“ 12. The conjoint reading of sections 6 and 12 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, paragraphs 26 {with specific reference to paragraph 26(6)}, 26A, 27, 27A and 29 of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 and the observations of the Supreme Court of India as referred above, leaves no room, in my view, but to hold that the employer can not be directed to contribute in the provident fund of the employee, more than ten per cent or twelve per cent, or on the monthly emoluments exceeding Rs. 6500, the ceiling now prevailing. The liability of the employer, under this Act, under all these cases is limited to Rs. 6500 and limited to ten per cent or twelve per cent, as the case may be. 6500, the ceiling now prevailing. The liability of the employer, under this Act, under all these cases is limited to Rs. 6500 and limited to ten per cent or twelve per cent, as the case may be. The argument of learned counsel for the employees that section 12 of the Act would prohibit reduction of contribution by the employer from the amount exceeding to Rs. 6500 to the mandatory stipulation of Rs. 6500, is not well-founded and is rejected. Reference in this regard may also be made to the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Committee for Protection of Rights of ONGC Employees & others v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Dehradun & Others reported in 1990 (2) SCC 472 . The reliance placed by learned counsel for the employers on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of North Malabar Gramin Bank Officers’ Association and Another (supra), though is well-founded, the same may not be required to be gone into in detail, in view of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Committee for Protection of Rights of ONGC Employees (supra). The judgments relied upon by the employees which are referred above, will not have application in this fact situation and will not hold the field on the face of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, relied upon by the employers, which are referred above. Thus on this bone contention, the case of the employees is rejected and that of the employers is accepted. 13. With regard to the contention of learned advocates for the employees, that the employers be restrained from making any recovery from the employees regarding the excess contribution which was already made by the employer in the provident fund of the employees, prior to this litigation i.e. upto the year 1995 is concerned, it needs to be recorded that it is not even the case of the employers that there was any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employees. Learned counsels for the employers have vehemently opposed grant of relief on this point also but are not in a position to point out how employees were responsible for that. In this fact situation, this argument of learned counsel for employees is accepted. 14. Learned counsels for the employers have vehemently opposed grant of relief on this point also but are not in a position to point out how employees were responsible for that. In this fact situation, this argument of learned counsel for employees is accepted. 14. The stand of the authorities of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is based on applicability of section 12 of the Act. After having held that section 12 will not have application in the facts of this case, the stand taken by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner needs to be and is rejected. There is one more dimension so far the stand taken by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is concerned. In the judgment delivered by the Kerala High Court in the case of North Malabar Gramin Bank Officers’ Association and Another (supra), almost identical stand was rejected. Though the said judgment may not have any binding force so far as this Court is concerned, that argument is not available to the authority of Regional Provide Fund Commissioner because the provision of the Act which has fallen for consideration in this case, is the Central Act. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is an Authority of the Central Government, working in different States. The Authority of one State representing the Central Government cannot contend that interpretation of some sections of the Central Act given by one High Court would bind only the Authority of that State and the Regional Authority of the Central Government in different States is free to give its own interpretation to the same section of the Central Act. If such a stand is accepted, it would lead to anarchical situation, which can not be countenanced. It is to be noted that only because the Kerala High Court has taken this view, this argument of the management is accepted, is not the case here. Independent of it, on the reading of the Scheme of the Act, read with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above, I have found that section 12 of the Act would not have any application in the present case. On the face of this finding, I find that the stand of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is inconsistent with the interpretation given by a High Court which has binding force on the authority of the Central Government. The stand of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, needs to be and is rejected. 15. On the face of this finding, I find that the stand of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is inconsistent with the interpretation given by a High Court which has binding force on the authority of the Central Government. The stand of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, needs to be and is rejected. 15. In this group of petitions, on behalf of the employees, one of the contentions raised is of violation of principles of natural justice, as well as notice under section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On behalf of the employees it is also indicated that, at least the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner may be asked by the Court to hear all concern and decide the issue. On behalf of the employers, contention of alternative remedy is also taken. With regard to these rival contentions of involving some other forum/authority, it is recorded that, in my view, at this distant point of time, it would be unfair to ask the employees to approach the labour forum. Further, the petitions filed by the employers, challenging the decision of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner also revolve around the same issue and since all these petitions are heard together, without relegating the employees to alternative remedy, I have thought it fit to hear them on merits, including on the aspect of violation of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On hearing them on this issue as well, this Court finds that, in the event of giving notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while adjudicating the claim of the employees-workmen, the labour forum, legally can not have any course open, independent of, or inconsistent with, the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act, as given herein above, and under these circumstances, the argument of giving notice to the employees, in this fact situation, on merits, would not have taken the case of the employees any further. Same way, the argument on behalf of employees that, opportunity of hearing ought to have been given, independent of requirement of section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, also needs to be rejected, in the peculiar facts of this case, since the matters rest on applicability and interpretation of the provisions of the Act, and discussion and finding of this Court in that regard is already recorded above. Therefore, even if the contention of employees, that before reverting back to the contribution as per statutory obligation only, management ought to have heard the employees is accepted, that would lead to a situation, where they would not get anything on merits and still, after these many years, potentially fresh round of litigation would be left open to one set of litigants in this group, resulting into multiplicity of litigations, which, in peculiar facts, I do not consider to be in the interest of employees either. So far hearing by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is concerned, it would also have resulted in a situation worse than an exercise in futility, since the stand of that authority is already on record and that is held to be illegal. Under these circumstances, the contention on behalf of both the groups of involving some other authority for adjudication, is rejected. 16. In above fact situation and for the reasons recorded above, this Court arrives at the judgment and passes order as under : (i) The interpretation advanced on behalf of the employees, and their stand as reflected in the body of this judgment, would create inconsistency in the application of different sections of the Act and would result in an absurd situation wherein, in case of an employee, who is retained in the Scheme, drawing emoluments exceeding Rs. 6500, the liability of the employer is limited to Rs. 6500, but, an employee who was otherwise excluded and who is permitted to join the scheme, in his case, the liability of the employer would not be limited to Rs. 6500. This could not have been and is not the object of the Act. This court is unable to read any such exception in the Scheme of the Act, as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the employees. (ii) The grievance of the employees voiced in this group of petitions is found to be not tenable. The stand of the employers being not inconsistent with the Act, can not be rejected and the same is upheld. The stand of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is rejected. (iii) The employer cannot be directed to make payment, or to continue to make payment towards his share in the provident fund of the employee, exceeding the statutory liability of ten per cent or twelve per cent, as the case may be. The stand of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is rejected. (iii) The employer cannot be directed to make payment, or to continue to make payment towards his share in the provident fund of the employee, exceeding the statutory liability of ten per cent or twelve per cent, as the case may be. Further the liability of the employer is limited to the extent of wages, the present stipulation of which is Rs. 6500/- per month, as per the Act. Consequently, the decision of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, directing the employers to continue to contribute more than the statutory liability, which is impugned in the petitions filed by the employers, is quashed and set aside. (iv) The amount which is already contributed by the employers, even in excess of their statutory obligation, in the provident fund of the employees, upto 22.07.1997, the date on which the Division Bench of this Court worked out the interim arrangement as referred above, shall not be recovered from the employees. 17. Petitions filed by the employees are dismissed and Rule in each petition of employees is discharged, subject to protection qua recovery as ordered above. Petitions filed by the employers are allowed and Rule in each petition filed by employers-Banks Management is made absolute. Interim relief in the petitions filed by employees stands vacated. No order as to costs. 18. At this stage, learned advocates for the employees have requested that the interim arrangement as worked out by the Division Bench of this Court, as reflected in the order dated 22.07.1997 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1335 of 1996 and cognate matters, [ 1997 (3) GCD 572 (Guj.)] which has continued for all these years, may be continued for some reasonable time. Learned advocates for the management of the banks have opposed this request and it is indicated that after these many years, there is accumulation of huge amount and the management of the banks be now permitted to utilise that amount. Considering the totality of the facts, it is ordered that the above referred interim arrangement, which has continued for all these years, shall continue even while paying salary to the employees for the month of February, 2013. It is further ordered that the management of the banks, are restrained till 20.03.2013, from utilising the amount which is deposited and lying in separate bank accounts, pursuant to the above referred interim arrangement. Petitions dismissed.