IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 841 of 2008 (M/S) Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. ……… Petitioner Versus Sri Dhoom Singh. …….... Respondent Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate holding brief of Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the order dated 6th February, 2006 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner on the original side and the order dated 18th December, 2007 passed by the Labour Commissioner exercising appellate jurisdiction, I find that both the courts below have concurrently held that the so called recovery with respect to the alleged loss caused to the petitioner in the accident of the bus could not be effected from out of the gratuity amount payable to the respondent. The respondent retired from service on 30th April, 2001 and the alleged order was passed on 17th March, 2001 by the petitioner holding the respondent responsible for causing an accident and fixing his liability to pay the loss amount assessed at Rs. 75,000/-. Both the courts below have held that this amount could have been recovered from the respondent during service, but it was not done. Its recovery from out of the gratuity amount of the petitioner was not permissible. I tend to agree with the aforesaid view of both the courts below. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 06.06.2008 G