My employer deducted the cost of a lost item from my cash bond without asking my side — is that valid?

Two conditions, joined by 'and'

The article sets a pair of requirements and links them with and, so satisfying one is not enough. The employee must have been heard on the loss, and his responsibility must have been clearly shown. An employer that investigates thoroughly but never asks you anything has failed the first. An employer that hears you out and then charges you anyway, without establishing that you were the one responsible, has failed the second. In your situation the first is already missing, which is usually the simpler point to make because it turns on a fact rather than on weighing evidence.

Heard means heard beforehand

The provision speaks of what must happen before the deduction is made. A conversation after the money is gone, or an invitation to appeal a charge already taken, is not the same thing as being heard on the loss. Nor is being told about the loss and asked to sign an acknowledgment — the point of being heard is that you can offer an account: that the item was already faulty, that others had access to it, that you returned it, that the loss happened in circumstances beyond your control. If the deduction appeared on your payslip before anyone put the question to you, the sequence itself is the problem.

Clearly shown is a real standard

The wording is clearly shown, not suspected, not probable, and not inferred from the fact that the item was assigned to you. Shared custody is the usual complication: where a tool passes between shifts, or a stockroom is open to several people, mere assignment does not identify who is answerable for its loss. The amount is limited too — the article speaks of the actual amount of the loss or damage, so replacement at full new-item price, a penalty on top, or a flat charge fixed by company policy, goes beyond what may be recovered from a deposit.

What to do next

Write to your employer asking on what date you were heard on the loss and what evidence established your responsibility, and keep the reply. Silence or a vague answer is itself useful. Set the payslip showing the deduction against the accountability form for the item, and note any receipt or valuation the employer relies on for the amount charged. Whether the bond could lawfully be required at all is a separate question under Article 114, so raise both — a deposit that should never have been collected does not become lawful because the employer followed a process before drawing on it.

Related provisions

• Labor Code, Article 115 — Limits On Deductions
• Labor Code, Article 114 — Deposits For Loss Or Damage