*THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3258 OF 2006 % 25-06-2008 Between: # S. Hussain Bee …Petitioner And $ A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad & others …Respondents ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER : Mr. G. Vidyasagar ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTs: Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, Standing Counsel < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: -Nil- THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3258 OF 2006 O R D E R: The petitioner is employed as a Shramic in the Kurnool-I Depot of APSRTC. Her grievance is that the 2nd respondent is affecting deductions from her salary, virtually leaving nothing for her to sustain. She furnished the particulars of deductions and states that though her gross salary is in the range of Rs.4,500/-, the net salary is less than Rs.100/-. Placing reliance upon Section 60 C.P.C., she assails the action of the respondents. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed, stating that the petitioner has raised loans of different categories, and authorized the 2nd respondent, to affect deductions of the instalments. The necessary facts and figures are also furnished. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Basically, the prayer made by the petitioner is untenable, inasmuch as Section 60 C.P.C. does not apply to the facts of the present case. It is not even alleged that any order of declaration is passed against the petitioner. It is no doubt true that the petitioner had raised loans from different agencies, and the 2nd respondent is permitted to deduct the instalments thereof, from the salary of the petitioner. However, being an employer and an agency covered by the provisions of Payment of Wages Act (for short “the Act”), the 2nd respondent ought to have ensured that the provisions thereof, are complied with. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act enlists the nature of deductions that can be deducted from the salary of an employee. Sub-section (3) thereof, puts a ceiling on such deductions. It reads as under: “(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the total amount of deductions which may be made under sub- section (2) in any wage-period from the wages of any employed person shall not exceed:- (i) in cases where such deductions are wholly or partly made for payments to co-operative societies under clause (j) of sub-section (2), seventy-five per cent of such wages, and (ii) in any other case, fifty per cent of such wages: Provided that where the total deductions authorized under sub-section (2) exceed seventy-five per cent or, as the case may be, fifty per cent of the wages, the excess may be recovered in such manner as may be prescribed.” From a perusal of the same, it becomes clear that under no circumstances, the 2nd respondent can affect deductions, exceeding 75% of the salary of the petitioner. The facts pleaded by the petitioner disclose that deductions, even to the extent of 90%, are being affected. The same cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the 2nd respondent is directed to strictly follow sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act. This order, however, cannot be treated as waiving of any amount payable by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent shall arrive at the maximum amount that can be deducted from the salary of the petitioner, as per Section 7 of the Act, and proportionately reduce the deduction from each of the instalments. The left over amount shall be deducted in the future months. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 25th June 2008 Note: L.R. copies to be marked. (B/o) PAN