JUDGMENT B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. - Heard Advocate Tidke for petitioner - Employees Cooperative Society and Advocate Sonak for respondents. 2. By placing reliance upon Section 49 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and Section 7(2)(ff) and (kk) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the contention of Advocate Tidake is, it is a statutory obligation of respondent as Employer to enter into a tripartite agreement to guarantee the deduction of loan installment from monthly salary of borrower - employee. They have done so till 16th September, 2017. On that date, Department issued Circular No. 753/2017 and discontinued the same. Hence, after that date, such tripartite agreement has not been entered. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also adds that after this Circular, by another Circular, extension of renewal of earlier agreement and undertaking has also been done away and that Circular dated 30th November, 2017 is challenged in Writ Petition No. 8194/2017. 4. Advocate Sonak submits that the employees do not obtain loan only from the petitioner but they approached various Cooperative Societies and borrowed the same. With the result, the amount to be deducted every month goes beyond the permissible limit in terms of section 7(3) of the Payment of Wages Act. Realizing this difficulty and to protect the public revenue with employer, a policy decision was required to be taken. According to Advocate Sonak, therefore, the petitioner - Society before insisting on executing third party agreement or before disbursing the loan, must gather relevant data and in the process must also protect employer. He contends that when the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act are being violated by members of petitioner - Society, the petitioner - Society cannot seek such relief from this Court. 5. The contentions which have been raised by the respondents cannot be said to be unjust. Because of the provision of Section 49 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, the respondent as employer may be required to enter into a tripartite agreement not only with the petitioner but other creditors/ Cooperative Societies also. It appears that these agreements and loan previously obtained, are not brought to the notice of the petitioner by members. The members may, in a given case, also suppress the same. However, such suppression cannot protect the respondent and they have to honour their demands as per agreement. Therefore, they have issued the impugned circular. 6. It appears that these agreements and loan previously obtained, are not brought to the notice of the petitioner by members. The members may, in a given case, also suppress the same. However, such suppression cannot protect the respondent and they have to honour their demands as per agreement. Therefore, they have issued the impugned circular. 6. Section 49 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act is a welfare provision, enacted in the interest of cooperative movement and members of Cooperative Societies. The needy members who borrow loan from the Cooperative Societies, therefore, can give their wages as security and after tripartite agreement, their employer has to deduct monthly installment from their salary and make it over to concerned Cooperative Societies. 7. section 7(3) of the Payment of Wages Act does not permit deduction in excess of 75% of salary of such employee. If employee obtains loan from two or more Cooperative Societies or if then loan amount is more, the amount to be deducted may go beyond 75%. However, the statute in that event does not permit employer to deduct this amount. Employer can therefore always deduct amount to the extent of 75% and make it over proportionately to concerned Cooperative Societies. Merely because legal provision have been abused, the employer cannot set the same at naught. 8. In present facts, we find that the petitioner and respondents have to evolve a proper procedure which will require consultation with each other before any loan amount is sanctioned to any employee by any Cooperative Society. The petitioner Society can before disbursing loan amount, call for salary sheets/certificate from employer for past two or three years and verify the position. Similarly, the respondents can inform the petitioner about the loan obtained by members of petitioner - Society from other Cooperative Societies. 9. As the action taken by the respondents is in the interest of public revenue, though we find some lacuna in it, we are not quashing and setting aside communication dated 16.09.2017 issued by the respondent No. 2. We direct the petitioner and respondents to evolve appropriate and self-sufficient mechanism in this respect at the earliest and in any case within a period of six weeks. With these directions and with liberty to approach again if the grievance does survive thereafter, we dispose of the present petition. No costs.