As per case facts, the respondent, an ONGC employee, was allotted a quarter and retired. After his retirement, he was informed to vacate the residential accommodation as per policy allowing ... four months. Despite being informed of penal rent for non-vacation, he failed to vacate the quarter, leading to eviction proceedings. He eventually vacated the quarter after giving an undertaking. ONGC then deducted an amount from his gratuity towards unauthorized occupation charges. The respondent challenged this deduction in the High Court, which ruled in his favor, stating that gratuity could not be withheld for such dues. The High Court's decision was ex parte, and a review petition was rejected due to delay. ONGC appealed to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the employer, ONGC, had the statutory right to deduct dues for unauthorized occupation of staff accommodation from an employee's gratuity, especially when the employee had failed to vacate the premises despite warnings and the initiation of eviction proceedings. Finally, the Supreme Court held that ONGC, being a statutory corporation with regulations having the force of law, had the power to recover its dues from an officer without their consent, including from gratuity. The Court found the High Court's decision to be erroneous, particularly given that the respondent had ignored warnings and continued unauthorized occupation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Payment of Gratuity Act did not apply in this specific case, and the High Court was unjustified in exercising its extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction in the respondent's favor. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and dismissing the respondent's petition.