JUDGMENT :- Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. The question that falls for consideration in the present writ petition is whether Latabai - deceased employee could nominate her brother as her nominee for receiving the gratuity. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out my attention to Section 6(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') so also the definition of family in Section 2(h) of the said Act and argued that the brother of the deceased employee has no place whatsoever to claim gratuity and therefore, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur was wrong in making order in accordance with the nomination. 4. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the writ petition and supported the impugned order. Learned Counsel for respondent No.3 submits that on humanitarian ground the gratuity has been bisected into two and it is not that the petitioner is deprived of in entirety. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the rival parties. Section 6(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 reads thus : "Section 6(3) : If an employee has a family at the time of making a nomination. the nomination shall be made in favour of one or more members of his family, and any nomination made by such employee in favour of a person who is not a member of his family shall be void." Section 2(h) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which defines family, reads thus: "Section 2(h) : "family", in relation to an employee, shall be deemed to consist of - (i) in the case of male employee, himself, his wife. his children, whether married or unmarried, his dependent parents and the dependent parents of his wife and the widow and children of his pre-deceased son, if any, (ii) in the case of a female employee, herself, her husband, her children, whether married or unmarried, her dependent parents and the dependent parents of her husband and the widow and children of her pre-deceased son, if any; Explanation.- Where the personal law of an employee permits the adoption by him of a child, any child lawfully adopted by him shall be deemed to be included in his family, and where a child of an employee has been adopted by another person and such adoption is, under the personal law of the person making such adoption, lawful, such child shall be deemed to be excluded from the family of the employee;" 6. Perusal of the above provisions show that in case of female employee the gratuity would be payable to the various persons described therein and the provisions do not show any benefit to be given to the brother of female employee. In the instant case the brother of the female employee - deceased Latabai, was nominated to receive the gratuity and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur made an order distributing the same to them in half proportion each. 7. In view of the fact that brother does not fall anywhere in the definition of family even in case of female employee, I do not think that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur was right in ignoring the said provision of law and making the order impugned. The authorities under the Act are not expected to travel beyond the will of the Parliament and hence, I hold that the impugned orders are not according to law. In view of this, I make the following order. ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned orders, dated 10.9.2008, passed by the Controlling Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur and 11.2.2009, passed by the Regional Labour commissioner (Central), Nagpur are quashed and set aside. (iii) The amount of gratuity due to Latabai deceased - female employee shall be paid to the petitioner by the employer within a period of eight weeks from today. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. (iii) The amount of gratuity due to Latabai deceased - female employee shall be paid to the petitioner by the employer within a period of eight weeks from today. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Legal Aid Committee shall pay fees of Rs.l,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) to Advocate Shri. P. D. Meghe. Petition allowed.