1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.387 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITIN NO. 3179 OF 2009(D) (The Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Amravati and another ..vs.. Asha wd/o Ashok Patmase and others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM:- J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED :- 18 th OCTOBER, 2010 1. Heard Shri Wankhede, learned Counsel for the appellants. He argued that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not allowing the appellant-Corporation to deduct the amount of loan that was taken by him from the gratuity payable to his legal heirs. According to him, while taking the loan, the concerned employee agreed in terms of Clause-5 of the agreement to repay the said balance amount of loan with interest from the amount of gratuity payable to him. Therefore, the appellant-Corporation was entitled to recover the loan amount from the gratuity payable to the legal heirs. 2. Shri Wankhede, learned Counsel for the appellants, relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, 2 Oil and Natural Gas Commission Ltd. & another .vs. V.U. Warrier, reported in 2005 II CLR 631, and argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had reversed the judgment of the High Court, which prohibited recovery of gratuity payable to an officer and therefore, he urged to apply the said judgment in the instant case. 3. We have gone through the impugned order dated 06-08-2009, so also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Oil and Natural Gas Commission Ltd. & another .vs. V.U. Warrier cited supra. We find that the condition in Clause-5 incorporated in the agreement to repay the loan with interest from the gratuity is in violation of Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Insofar as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cited supra is concerned, we find that in paragraph 9 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered Regulation 5, which was dealing with the recovery of dues of the Commission. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held deduction of charges of unauthorised occupation of quarter from the amount of gratuity to be legal. In our opinion, Regulation No.5 in the Regulation of Oil and Natural Gas Commission Ltd. stands on its own footing and there is no such regulation, as is in the present case. That apart, Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act prohibits recovery of loan from gratuity payable to an employee. On the face of legislative intention in the form of Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act to 3 prohibit the employer from recovering the loan amount from the gratuity of the employee, we do not think that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra has any application. 4. In the result, we do not find any merit in the Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE pma