THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16449 OF 1999 Dated: 09.06.2010 Between : The A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited, Lalapet, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director. .. Petitioner And 1. The Asst. Commissioner of Labour-II, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16449 OF 1999 ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the A.P. Dairy Development Federation Limited (for short, ‘Petitioner Federation’) seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 19.6.1999 passed by the 1st respondent - The Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 directing payment of Rs.31,168/- to the 2nd respondent herein and to quash the same being arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly the 2nd respondent herein had retired from the service of the petitioner Federation on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.1995. Though his terminal benefits were paid, so far as gratuity is concerned, a sum of Rs.31,168/- was deducted. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent authority. The petitioner Federation filed a counter before the 1st respondent contending that during his tenure as General Manager, a sum of Rs.31,168/- was found to be due from the 2nd respondent and therefore a notice was issued. In spite of notice as the 2nd respondent failed to pay, the said amount was recovered from the gratuity. The 1st respondent authority while holding that the said deduction was impermissible under Section 4 (6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, passed the impugned order directing the petitioner Federation to deposit the said amount of Rs.31,168/- by way of demand draft in favour of the Controlling Authority and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II within 30 days. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the Federation. Section 4 (1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the Act’) provides that the gratuity shall be payable on termination of employment if the employee rendered continuous service for not less than five years. Sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act further provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), gratuity of an employee whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to the employer shall be forfeited to the extent of damage or loss so caused. It is not disputed before this Court that the 2nd respondent had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and this is not a case where his services were terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence. It is also not the case of the petitioner Federation that any damage or loss was caused to the property of the management. The only ground upon which the amounts were deducted from gratuity is that certain excess amounts were paid to the 2nd respondent and the same have to be recovered from him. Even assuming that any such excess amounts are paid, it is impermissible under the provisions of the Act to recover the same from the gratuity payable to the 2nd respondent. Hence, the order under challenge did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 09.06.2010 gbs