1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3246 of 2009 (The Zilla Parishad, Amravati, through the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati. V. 1. The Additional Commissioner of Labour, Civil Lines, Nagpur, 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Camp Road, Amravati, 3. Shantaram s/o Shamraoji Patil.) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Petitioner. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 21 st August, 2009 1. This petition by the Zilla Parishad is directed against the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, maintaining the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,62,230/- towards gratuity of the applicant/respondent No.3 Shantaram Shamraoji Patil. 2. Said Shantaram Patil served with the 2 petitioner-Zilla Parishad for a period of 37 years, 4 months and 12 days. His last pay was Rs.7,600/-. Therefore, he was entitled to gratuity amounting to Rs.1,62,230/-. The Zilla Parishad adjusted a sum of Rs.82,563/- towards dues of the employee towards a loan availed by him from the Co-operative Society of the employees, which they could not have done. They claimed to have paid to the employee a sum of Rs.42,837/- towards gratuity after this adjustment, since, according to them, the gratuity payable was Rs.1,25,400/- as per Rule 111 of the Maharashtra Civil Services Pensions Rules. Upon an application by the employee, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour directed payment of Rs.1,62,230/- towards gratuity. While preferring an appeal against this order, the Zilla Parishad deposited the amount with the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. The Appellate Authority maintained the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. This is how the petitioner is before before this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The calculation of entitlement of the gratuity in respect of the employee made by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour cannot be faulted. Therefore, he rightly held that a 3 sum of Rs.1,62,230/- was required to be paid as gratuity to the employee. If a sum of Rs.42,837/- has been paid towards gratuity, the petitioner must be having acquaintance roll and would be entitled to deduct this amount and pay the balance. As far as adjustment of loan of a Co-operative Society is concerned, this could not at all have been done in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Therefore, the petitioner would be liable to pay this amount to the employee, which was wrongfully deducted. Thus the Appellate Authority’s order cannot be faulted and it has to be held that the Authorities were right in concluding that the employee was entitled to Rs.1,62,230/- minus the amount, if any, paid towards gratuity. Since the amount in deposit is with the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, he may disburse the balance, i.e. Rs.1,62,230/- minus Rs.42,837/-, which is allegedly paid to the employee after ascertaining from the employee that the amount has been received by him and refund a sum of Rs.42,837/- to the employer. 5. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. Judge. pdl