1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1839/2011 Govind S. Jape V/s. Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri. P. Rajurkar, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 28 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Labour Court, Buldhana, on 22/07/2010, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for recovery of amount of Rs. 25,500/-. It was stated in the application filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that the respondent had illegally deducted an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from his Provident Fund Account when he is retired from services. It is not in dispute the services of the petitioner were terminated for alleged misconduct on 17/07/1990. It is the case of the respondent that on the date of dismissal an amount of Rs. 26140 was lying in the Provident Fund Account of the petitioner and at the relevant time the petitioner was in 2 arrears of Rs. 25,000/- which was obtained by the petitioner from State Transport Co-op. Bank Ltd., Buldhana. It appears that, the petitioner had challenged his termination before the Labour Court and before the Industrial Court the matter between the parties was settled. It is the case of the petitioner that, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- could not have been deducted from the Provident Fund account of the petitioner in view of the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Labour Court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as it was the case of the respondent that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was deducted from the Provident Fund account of the petitioner with consent and remaining amount of Rs. 640/- was paid to him by cheque on 12/04/1991. It appears that, though the remaining amount was paid to the petitioner by cheque on 12/04/1991, the petitioner had filed the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the year 2009. The Labour Court held that, though the matter between the parties was settled before the Industrial Court, Akola and the settlement was recorded, there was nothing on record to show that the issue of illegal deduction of the amount from the Provident Fund account of the petitioner was raised before the Industrial Court. Since the petitioner did not deny the fact about his incurring loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the State Transport Cooperative Bank Ltd., Buldhana and since it was not his case that he had paid the said loan, the Labour Court rightly held 3 that the said issues could not have been decided in an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Could held on the basis of the evidence on record that, the petitioner had voluntarily permitted the respondent to deduct the amount of Rs. 25,000/- which he was liable to pay to the State Transport Cooperative Bank Ltd., Buldhana, and hence he was not entitled for recovery of Rs. 25,500/- from the respondent. There is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Labour Court so as to interfere with the same in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Punde