* 1 * W.P. 622.2010 4.8.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 622 OF 2010 Shri. Hemant Shashikant Chandratre ... Petitioner V/S. Nashik District Girna Sahakari Bank & Ors. .... Respondents * * * * Mr. Makarand P. Panchakshari h/f. Mr. Sandeep K. Shinde Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tejas Dande, Advocate for respondent no.1 to 19. Mrs. A.S. Pai, APP for the State-respondent no.20. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 4th August, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This petition challenges the order dated 30th January, 2010 passed by the Sessions Court, Nashik allowing Criminal Revision Application No. 105 of 2009. The Revision Application was filed by respondents no.1 to 19 herein to challenge the order of issuance of process in R.C.C. No.672 of 2007 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nashik alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 209, 418, 421 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. * 2 * W.P. 622.2010 4.8.2011 The petitioner was the employee of respondent no.1 who had resigned from the job in the year 2004. He alleges that respondents no.1 to 19 in furtherance of their common dishonest intention deprived him of his gratuity amount of Rs.32,199/-. The trial Court passed an order under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code directing the Police Station to conduct an enquiry. Accordingly, the enquiry was conducted and report filed on 30th April, 2008. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate issued process on 10th November, 2008 which order was challenged before the Sessions Court by filing Revision Application. The Sessions Court noted the provisions of Section 9 and 11 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to hold that the complaint as filed was not maintainable. Section 9 does provide for penalty in case of non-payment of gratuity. However, Section 11 provides that no court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act unless the complaint is made by the Controlling Authority authorized by the appropriate government. It was necessary therefore for the petitioner to approach the appropriate government. Thus, the view taken by the Sessions Court is a correct view. The learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 19 states that the amount of gratuity has been withheld by respondent no.1 since the petitioner has misappropriated some amounts of the bank in respect of which an enquiry is being conducted. * 3 * W.P. 622.2010 4.8.2011 2. Perusal of the impugned judgment and order shows that the same has been correctly passed and does not require any interference. Hence, the petition is dismissed in limine. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]