JUDGMENT : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner MSRT Corporation is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 05.10.2016, delivered by the Industrial Court, Nagpur vide which, Complaint (ULP) 136/2010 filed by respondent no.1 original complainant, has been allowed. 3. One Mr. Fransis Ghorpade, an employee of the petitioner, borrowed an amount of Rs.1,38,600/- from respondent no.2 MSRT Co-operative Bank Limited. The original complainant was a co-guarantor. The loan amount was borrowed on 19.05.2006. Mr. Ghorpade took VRS on 17.09.2008. The petitioner MSRTC accepted his VRS on 04.10.2008 and relieved him from employment. He was paid his entire legal dues and retiral benefits and the unpaid loan amount was not adjusted against any of his retiral benefits. 4. The petitioner initiated action against the complainant alone for the recovery of the unpaid loan amount. He approached the Industrial Court vide his ULP complaint alleging that Unfair Labour Practice Item 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("MRTU and PULP Act"). By the impugned judgment dated 05.10.2016, the Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint and directed as under: 1. The Complaint ULP No. 136/2010 is partly allowed. 2. It is hereby declared that, the Respondent No.1 indulged in to unfair labour practices under Item 5 & 9 Schedule-IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, while deducting loan installment amount from monthly salary of the complainant towards loan advanced by Mr. Francis Ghorpade, the former employee of the Respondent No.1 from the Respondent No.2 Bank without any show cause notice and not recovering outstanding said loan from another employee Shri Kalsarpe who also stood guarantor for said loan. 3. The Respondent No. 1 & 2 are hereby directed to refund entire amount which have been deducted from the salary of the complainant w.e.f December, 2008 till-date towards loan amount disbursed by the Respondent No.2 in favour of Shri Francis Ghorpade, the former employee of the Respondent No.1 within period of 6 months from today, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to recover the same from the Respondent No.1 and 2 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order. 4. No order as to cost. 5. 4. No order as to cost. 5. The vehement contention of the learned Advocate for the Corporation is that the guarantors were also liable to pay the amount if the borrower failed to do so. There was one more guarantor besides the original complainant, namely Shri Suresh Sadashiv Kalsarpe. The original complainant as well as Mr. Kalsarpe are still in employment of the Corporation. As such, the petitioner was within its legal right to recover the unpaid loan amounts from one of the guarantors. 6. The learned Advocate for the complainant submits that firstly, the Corporation sought to recover the unpaid amounts only from the complainant. Secondly, such recovery was sought without issuance of any show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing. Thirdly, no amount was sought to be recovered from Mr. Kalsarpe for reasons best known to the Corporation and fourthly, the conduct of the petitioner management in paying all the retiral benefits to Mr. Ghorpade amounts to waiving the loan amount. 7. The learned Advocate for respondent no.2 Bank submits that his client is interested in recovery of amount and it is the duty of the Corporation to recover the amount and make such payment to the Bank. He further submits that the complaint was not maintainable as there is no unfair labour practice involved. 8. I find that the complainant had approached the Industrial Court with a twofold grievance. Firstly, as to why was the complainant alone being targeted for the recovery of the unpaid loan amount when Mr. Kalsarpe was also a co-guarantor and secondly, the MSRTC has indulged in an act of favoritism towards Mr. Ghorpade by not recovering the unpaid loan amounts from him even while paying his entire legal dues and, as such, has selectively chosen the guarantor for recovery of amount. 9. It cannot be ignored that the resignation of Mr. Ghorpade was accepted and without recovering the unpaid loan amount from his retiral benefits, he was paid the entire retiral benefits along with gratuity. This would amount to the petitioner Corporation, by conduct, waiving the recovery of the loan amount since clause 5 of the contract between the Bank, the borrower Mr. Ghorpade was accepted and without recovering the unpaid loan amount from his retiral benefits, he was paid the entire retiral benefits along with gratuity. This would amount to the petitioner Corporation, by conduct, waiving the recovery of the loan amount since clause 5 of the contract between the Bank, the borrower Mr. Ghorpade and the two guarantors indicates a statement made by the borrower that if he is unable to pay the regular installments or the loan amounts, the MSRT Corporation can recover the said amount from his salary, allowance, bonus and gratuity and any other payable amount and the said amount would then be deposited with the Bank. 10. In my view, the Industrial Court has rightly recorded that the concerned officer of the MSRT Corporation has ignored this clause of the agreement while clearing the payments and the Corporation could have recovered the entire amount from the legal dues of Mr. Ghorpade. 11. Clause 6 of the said agreement further indicates a declaration by Mr. Ghorpade that if he is unable to pay the loan amount, whatever reserves he has with the Bank or any other account, would be available to the bank and the bank would therefore, recover the unpaid loan amounts from such reserves. Clause 7 of the agreement indicates any unpaid loan amounts can be recovered from Mr. Ghorpade and in the event of his demise, from his legal heirs. 12. The learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon clause 14 to submit that it deals with the conclusion of the service of Mr. Ghorpade and if loan amounts are not recovered, the Bank would recover the same from both the guarantors. 13. I find that the effect of clauses 4 to 7 have made the case practically air tight by fixing the responsibility on the Corporation, as well as the Bank, to ensure that Mr. Ghorpade does not slip away without payment of the unpaid loan amounts. When the entire legal dues as well as the gratuity was available with the Corporation and when clause 5 enabled the Corporation to deduct the gratuity amount for recovering the loan amounts, it would be unfair on the part of the Corporation to make the guarantors a scapegoat by favouring the borrower by releasing his entire legal dues and practically absolving him from his liability of repayment of loan amount. 14. 14. In this view of the matter, the conduct of the Corporation against the original complainant did amount to unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act as they have violated the terms of their own agreement and shown undue favoritism to Mr. Ghorpade. 15. Considering the above, this petition being devoid of merit, is therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. 16. Needless to state, if the petitioner or the Bank intend to initiate proceedings against Mr. Ghorpade on the basis of the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 19.05.2006, said liberty, if so permissible in law, now, is kept open.