Judgment N. Pandey, J. This is an appeal on behalf of the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation (India) Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act, against an order dated 28.2.1986 in Insolvency Case No. 5 of 1978, whereby, the 4th Additional District Judge, Monghyr, has held that the amount of provident fund and gratuity payable to the respondent employee debtor are liable to attachment for satisfaction of the decree in favour of Viswanath Saraff (respondent no. 1). 2. As would appear from the impugned dorder that an objection was filed by the appellant that in view of the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as well as Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 read with Section 60(1)(k) of the Code of Civil Procedure, no amount of provident fund and gratuity can be attached in execution of any decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal court. It was contended since the employee-respondent was alive, therefore, he could draw the amount of provident fund and gratuity in order to pay the same to the decree holder or to deposit before the court in execution of the decree. 3. The court below however, rejected the objection, holding that the deposit made by the subscriber in the provident fund and the amount of gratuity payable to the employee are liable to attachment, because as per sub-section (2) (E) of Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, employees doing skill, semi-skilled or unskilled job getting wages more than Rs.1000/-per month will not come within the definition of the term employees. The debtor respondent was getting Rs.1400/- per month as gross salary from the appellant, therefore can not get benefit of such a provision. 4. Before proceeding to consider the case on merit, it would be appropriate to mention that having regard to the admitted dues of respondent no. The debtor respondent was getting Rs.1400/- per month as gross salary from the appellant, therefore can not get benefit of such a provision. 4. Before proceeding to consider the case on merit, it would be appropriate to mention that having regard to the admitted dues of respondent no. 1, as also stand taken by the debtor before the court below and there was no denial by the appellant company about the entitlement of the debtor to receive certain amount of provident fund and gratuity, at my instance learned counsel for the appellant was ready with two cheques worth Rs.5,659.88 Paise (Rupees five thousand six hundred fifty nine and eighty eight paise) and Rs.62,705.95 (Rupees sixty two thousand seven hundred five and ninety five paise) in order to hand over the same to respondent no. 1 in presence of respondent no. 2. But unfortunately in spite of several adjournments neither respondent no. 1 nor respondent no. 2 could appear to receive the cheques. Therefore, I had no option but to allow Mr. Bose to return the cheques to his client. 5. Mr. Bose while coming to the merit of the case, contended that in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance & ors. AIR 1976 SC 1163 no amount of provident fund and gratuity can be attached in execution of a decree or order passed by the civil court, revenue court or a criminal court. He contended that bare reading of Sections 3 and 4 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925 read with Section 60 (1) Proviso (g) & (k) of the Code of Civil Procedure leave no doubt on the point of non-attachability of such amount. 6. To make the point more elaborate it would be relevant to mention that Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure discloses, the details of the properties liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree. The Proviso of Section 60 discloses, the details of the properties, which can not be attached and sold in execution of decree. Sub-provisos (g), (k) & (o) indicate that the amounts of stipend and gratuities as well as the amount of provident fund are exempted from liability to attachment or sale in execution of a decree. The Proviso of Section 60 discloses, the details of the properties, which can not be attached and sold in execution of decree. Sub-provisos (g), (k) & (o) indicate that the amounts of stipend and gratuities as well as the amount of provident fund are exempted from liability to attachment or sale in execution of a decree. He contended that in view of foregoing statutory provisions and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, even the debtor agreed for payment of the 'dues, no order of attachment could be passed. 7. In my view the submission of Mr. Bose is well founded. Because a bare reference to the relevant provisions, noticed above, as well as the decision of the Apex Court I am constrained to hold that the order of the court below is bad in law. But having regard to the fair stand of the appellant before this Court I would like to direct to hand over at least the cheques of same amount, which they had produced before me, so that in case respondent no. 2 agrees, the payment can be made to respondent no. 1 in order to avoid further litigation. 8. In the result, subject to the directions/observations made above, this appeal is allowed and the order of the court below is set aside. But in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.