MOHAMED ANWAR, J. ( 1 ) THE arguments of the learned Counsel on both sides are heard. ( 2 ) THIS revision is by the defendant in Original Suit No. 10030 of 1992 pending on its file, directing respondent 2 herein to withhold the gratuity amount of Rs. 20,000/- payable to petitioner until further orders. ( 3 ) THE undisputed facts leading to this revision are as stated under:respondent 1 filed his said suit i. e. Original Suit No. 10030 of 1992, for recovery of money from petitioner who was an employee of respondent 2-factory. During the pendency of the said suit respondent 1-plaintiff made an application before the trial Court for a direction to respondent 2 to withhold payment of the gratuity amount payable to respondent 1. Due to inadvertance, instead of withholding the payment of the said amount to petitioner, respondent 2 deposited in Trial Court the gratuity amount of Rs. 20,000/- payable to the petitioner. Thereafter, an application was made by respondent 2 before the trial Court praying that the said amount may be returned to it since the order of the Trial Court was to withhold and not to deposit the same with it. Then by its considered order dated 18-1-1995, the Trial Court allowed respondent 2's application directing refund of the said amount and with a further direction that the same shall be withheld from payment to petitioner until further order. Aggrieved by that order petitioner/defendant has challenged the legality thereof in this revision on the ground that by virtue of relevant provision of Payment of Gratuity Act of 1972, the payment of said gratuity amount to him cannot be withheld in law. ( 4 ) PLACING reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Calcutta Dock Labour Board and Another v Smt. Sandhya mitra and Others1. Mr. S. R. Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, submitted that the gratuity amount payable to an employee of a concern is exempt from attachment in any suit or proceeding and, therefore, the impugned order is patently illegal and not sustainable. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for respondent 2, Mr. Mr. S. R. Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, submitted that the gratuity amount payable to an employee of a concern is exempt from attachment in any suit or proceeding and, therefore, the impugned order is patently illegal and not sustainable. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for respondent 2, Mr. A. S. Bopanna conceding the submission of learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that infact on the basis of the said decision of the Supreme Court, the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has also passed its order dated 27th May, 1996 on the application of petitioner made before it, which was registered under No. 48 (3) 96-B3, directing respondent 2 to release the said amount to the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE material Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, reads: "13. Production of Gratuity: no gratuity payable under this Act shall be liable to attachment in execution of any decree or order of any civil revenue or Criminal Court". Interpreting Section 13 of the Act, the Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Dock Labour Board's case, supra, has held: "the gratuity which was payable to him squarely came within the purview of the Act and, therefore, became entitled to immunity under Section 13 thereof. ( 7 ) IT is therefore clear that by virtue of Section 13 of the Act, the gratuity amount payable to an employee of an industrial concern, is exempt from attachment in execution of any decree or order of any Civil Court or Criminal Court. Section 14 thereof further envisages that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity act, 1972 shall have overriding effect on the provisions of any other enactment. In that view of the legal position I find that the impugned order of the Court below is not sustainable and it is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18-1-1995 of the Court below so far as it relates to the direction given to respondent 2 to withhold the gratuity amount of Rs. 20,000/- payable to petitioner until further order, is set aside. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .