1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 480 OF 2010. Divisional Controller, MSRTC -: VERSUS :- Mahadev Arjun Dange and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 12, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned Counsel for Petitioner, Shri C.V. Jagdale and Shri Gour, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Petitioner / employer has challenged the order passed by the Competent Authority under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and order passed by the Appellate Authority allowing the claim of respondent no.1 / employee for release of deducted amount of gratuity. The petitioner / employer states that 2 respondent no.1 had borrowed loan from Cooperative Bank of employees and as per the agreement and authorization executed by him, the petitioner has deducted the loan amount and paid it to the Bank on his behalf. Shri Wankhede, learned Counsel states that in Writ Petition No. 461/2010 on 23.04.2010 in identical circumstances, this Court has given liberty to petitioner to place on record necessary authorization and agreements and remanded the matter back to the Competent Authority for said purpose. His contention is, as amount deposited while filing appeal was withdrawn by the respondent – employee in that matter, this Court also directed that in case the application was rejected by the Competent Authority, the amount would be refunded by the respondent. Shri Jagdale with Shri Gour, learned Counsel states that the issue is covered by order dated 09.03.2010 in Writ Petition No. 4897/2009. He further places reliance upon various judgments to show that such deductions from amount of gratuity is not legally 3 possible. He points out that those judgments are also considered by the Appellate Authority. He further states that the amount of gratuity of Rs.71,090/- was deposited by the petitioner with the Appellate Authority and after decision of the appeal and before this Court passed order on Writ Petition on 03.02.2010, that amount was withdrawn by the respondent. The facts prima facie show that respondent no.1 had taken loan from the Cooperative Bank of employees of MSRTC and as a condition there of he authorized his employer to effect deductions and also to pay balance amount from his dues. The authorization and agreement is in favour of petitioner and petitioner contends that there is agreement between all parties in this respect. Petitioners are seeking liberty to produce the same on record. The facts therefore, show that respondent no.1 has availed of loan and that loan has been repaid on his behalf out of the public money. The interest of justice therefore, demands that the Competent Authority should find out what was the arrangement between the 4 parties about repayment of said loan or its outstanding. The relevant document was not produced by the petitioner before the Competent Authority. I, therefore, find that the order dated 23.04.2010 in Writ Petition No. 461/2010 covers this controversy. The order dated 09.03.2010 in Writ Petition No. 4897/2009 considers the right of petitioner MSRTC to deduct amount from gratuity, if the employee is dismissed for mis-appropriation after departmental inquiry. The facts there are entirely different and law applied is also different. In the circumstances, by following order dated 23.04.2010, the order dated 03.10.2008 passed by the Competent Authority and the judgment dated 30.10.2009 delivered by the Appellate Authority, are quashed and set aside. The proceedings are restored back to the file of the Competent Authority to enable the petitioner and parties before it to produce relevant documents. After the documents are produced, the Authority to find out whether the petitioner has paid the loan amount for and on behalf of the respondent no.1 to 5 the Bank. The appropriate orders in accordance with law shall thereafter be passed by the said Authority. If the Authority finds that the respondent no.1 not entitled to receive the amount which is already withdrawn by him, respondent no.1 shall within a period of six weeks of such adjudication return that amount back to the petitioner. Writ Petition is thus allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.