1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4915 OF 2009. M.S.R.T.C. Bhandara -: versus :- Smt. Shobha Suleman Umar Kachhi 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 : FEBRUARY 24 , 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri M.P. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent. Respondent is legal representative of deceased Driver and she filed application under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 to recover back the amount of Rs, 18000/- deducted from his provident fund amount towards repayment of loan of S.T. Employees Cooperative Bank. She contended that such recovery was contrary to the provisions of the Provident Fund Act. The Industrial Court accepted that grievance and has ordered petitioner to refund that amount of Rs. 18000/- with interest payable at 9% on it from 04.04.1988 till repayment. 2 Shri Wankhede, learned counsel for petitioner has contended that such adjustment is not totally prohibited and has placed reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported at 2005 [II] LLJ 228 (Sharma K.P and another .vrs. Union of India and others). He further argues that for amounts deducted on 04.04.1988 proceedings are instituted in 2007 and the interest at 9% is awarded from 04.04.1988. He therefore, argues that when the receipt of loan of Rs.18000/- and his liability to repay is not in dispute, grant of such interest is unwarranted. Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel relies upon the provisions of Section 10[2] of the Employees Provident Fund Act to urge that because of statutory bar contained therein, deduction has been rightly found to be bad and as deduction is bad interest from 04.04.1988 has been awarded. Several matters of this nature has come before this Court. It appears that the management of petitioner has over all these years developed a practice wherein the loans of cooperative societies are paid by the employer indirectly through public exchequer by such means. The practice could have been discontinued long back, but no steps for said purpose have been taken. Here the facts clearly show that the deceased was liable to pay loan amount of Rs. 18000/- to his cooperative Bank and he did not pay it. That amount was therefore deducted from his provident fund as per agreement between the parties and it was repaid to the said Cooperative Bank. The agreement and deduction is apparently not in accordance with the provisions of Section 10[2] of the E.P.F. 3 Act. The judgment of Division Bench of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court considers the grievance made by the petitioners who were guarantors for one Badriprasad Mishra who had secured housing loan from the department. He was removed from service and thereafter dues were recovered from retirement dues of both the petitioners before that High Court. The observations show that Hon'ble Division Bench has found that after the payment of General Provident Fund with interest to employee, the same should be adjusted and balance if any should be recovered from the guarantors i.e. petitioners. Thus the facts there were entirely different and hence that ruling has no application here. I do not find any thing warranting interference with the findings recorded by the Industrial Court. Infact as also expressed above, the petitioner management is deliberately putting the burden of repayment of loan of its employees and officer on public exchequer. No case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. The same is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.