vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5609 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5609 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5609 OF 2008 Maharashtra Veej Kamgar Mahasangh & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. The Executive Engineer & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.V.P. Vaidya for Petitioner Mr.M.V. Deshmukh for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The order challenged in this petition has been passed by the Industrial Court on 20.6.2008 rejecting the interim application filed by the petitioner. Four separate complaints were filed by the petitioner with respect to four employees whose salary was sought to be deducted by the respondents. It appears that a consumer of the respondent had a grievance against the respondents and, therefore, filed a proceeding before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum in respect of loss of an amount of Rs.50,000/- suffered on account of deficiency in service by the respondent. It appears that the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum has directed the petitioners to deduct this amount from the salary of the four employees. The petitioners, : 2 : therefore, filed four complaints as according to them, the respondents were indulging in an unfair labour practice by seeking to recover the aforesaid amount, equally from each of them. The Industrial Court has refused to stay the recovery and has rejected the application of interim relief. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondents states that the amount has been recovered from three employees. However, only an amount of Rs.9000/- has been recovered from one of the employees, Shri Khairnar. In this view of the matter, no interim relief can be granted to the three employees from whose salary the amounts have already been deducted. However, if the entire amount has not been recovered from Mr.Khairnar, no further recovery shall be made from his salary. 3. The observations contained in the order of the Industrial Court in my opinion, are unfounded and are incorrect. The Industrial Court has held that it has no jurisdiction to consider whether the recovery of the amount is in breach of the provisions of law. Any recovery made from the salary of a workmen has to be made in accordance with the Payment of Wages Act or the contract of service between the employer and the employee or any other provision of law. Therefore, the Industrial Court can always consider whether the : 3 : deduction made from the salary of an employee is in breach of law or in violation of any agreement, settlement or an award applicable to the employee. 4. Although no interim relief can be granted to the workmen concerned except as aforesaid, the observations of the Industrial Court with regard to the maintainability of the complaint are set aside. The complaint to proceed. 5. Petition is accordingly disposed of.