1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITIION NO.1167 OF 1998 Suresh Kumar Yadav .. Petitioner V/s Air India Limited & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Maharukh Adenwalla for the Petitioner. Mr.S.K.Talsania. Senior Advocate with Mr.Abhay Kulkarni and Mrs.Pooja Kulkarni i/by M/s.Bhasin & Co. for Respondents. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 18th August, 2009. P.C.: 1. Petitioner by this petition makes a grievance about the deduction of an amount at the rate of Rs.8,800/- per month from the dues payable to the petitioner. The petitioner was in the employment of the Respondents. Disciplinary action was taken against him and he was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal is dated 9.1.1997. By letter dated 30.1.1997 he was told that as a consequence of his dismissal from service he should vacate the Staff Quarter allotted to him, in relation to which there was Leave and Licence Agreement entered into between the Respondents and the Petitioner. He was told that if he does not vacate the premises by 28.2.1997, he will have to pay enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.8,800/- per month. It is a common ground that after issuing dismissal order, the Respondents 2 were required to seek approval of Industrial Court to the order of dismissal because of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. That approval was obtained on 23.10.1997 and immediately thereafter on 28.10.1997 the petitioner vacated the quarter. The only dispute in this petition is whether there is any authority in the Respondents to claim Rs.8,800/- per month as compensation for the period from 9.2.1997 till 28.10.1997 when the petitioner vacated that quarter. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for both sides. We do not find any authority either in any law or in any contract entered into between the parties authorising the Respondents to unilaterally fix the amount of enhanced compensation. It appears that even if the occupation of the petitioner becomes unauthorised, the amount of damages can be determined under the provisions of the Public Premises Act. But the amount of damages even if it is assumed that the Respondents are entitled to, cannot be unilaterally determined by the Respondents. The amount has already been deducted from the dues payable to the petitioner. Taking a overall view of the matter, in our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- ORDER “The Respondents are directed to refund to the petitioner the amount of enhanced compensation deducted from the dues payable to him, on 3 expiry of a period of six months from today. The Respondents shall be at liberty to institute proceedings in the appropriate Court or Authority under the appropriate law for determination of the amount of compensation and obtain suitable orders from that Court / Authority. In case any suitable order is obtained by the Respondents within a period of six months, the Respondents shall deal with the deducted amount in accordance with that order. If no such order is obtained within that period, the amount shall be released to the Petitioner. Rule made absolute accordingly. Petition disposed of. No order as to costs.” (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)