1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR L.P.A.NO.482 of 2010 in W.P.NO.2815 of 2009 (D) The Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C.Amravati and anr. ..vs.. Smt.Narmadabai wd/o Madhukar Nagdive and ors. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.V.G.Wankhede, Adv. for the appellants. C ORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR AND A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : 14th October, 2010. Heard Shri Wankhede, learned counsel for the appellant. It is not in dispute that the amount which was sought to be recovered from the gratuity payable to the employee was towards the loan liability that was outstanding against her. We find that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a welfare legislation and does not allow any such deduction of loan amount from the amount of gratuity payable to the employee upon retirement. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to Clause 5 of the Agreement entered into by the employee with the Bank. We, however, find that even though the employee had entered into an agreement towards the loan amount to be recovered from the gratuity payable to her, the said clause 5 is in violation of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 2 1972. The said clause is, therefore, inoperative. Mr.Wankhede, learned counsel for the appellant, cited a decision of Division Bench of the Punjab High Court reported in 2008 II CLR 60 (Punjab and Sind Bank, Chandigarh ..vs.. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh and ors.). Having gone through the said judgment, we find that the Division Bench of Punjab High Court has specifically found that the employee was, by way of penalty, compulsorily retired from the service on being found guilty of causing huge monetary loss to the Bank, and on that ground the loan amount was recovered from the gratuity. We do not find that the said judgment has any application in the present case. There is, therefore, no merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE. pzc 3