Judgment :- "C.R." The petitioner, while working as the Personal Manager of the 4th respondent Corporation, had stood as a guarantor to various loans availed by some employees of the 4th respondent Corporation, agreeing to have deducted the dues from his salary or such other benefits, if the borrowers turned to be defaulters under any circumstances. 2. It is case of the petitioner that, the principal debtors did not remit the due amount, which made the petitioner to satisfy the demand made by the KSFE, by suffering attachment of a portion of his salary as agreed, the particulars of which have been given in the form of a statement as born by Ext.P3. It is contended that, the petitioner retired from the service on 30.9.08 and as such, no further proceedings could have been pursued against him or in respect of the amount payable to him from the 4th respondent by way Gratuity and without any regard to this, the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P4 'prohibitory order' instructing the 4th respondent not to disburse the amount due to be paid to the petitioner in respect of his service benefits. The petitioner challenges the sustainability of Ext. P4 'prohibitory order' on many a ground, legal and factual. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a statement pointing out that the petitioner had already agreed for recovery of the dues from his salary at source and also from the terminal benefits to be paid to him in the due course. A true copy of the said agreement has been produced as Ext.R1(a). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Gratuity payable to the petitioner is under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972. This being the position, the Gratuity payable under the Act can never sought to be attached under any circumstances, particularly in view of the Statutory bar created under Section 13 of the Act and also by virtue of the overriding effect of the Act as provided under Section 14. 3. Section 2 (e) of the Act defining the term 'employee' is extracted below: 2e. 3. Section 2 (e) of the Act defining the term 'employee' is extracted below: 2e. "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages , in any establishment, factory , mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop to do any skilled, semiskilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied (and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity] From the above definition, it is crystal-clear that the petitioner, though was holding the office of the Personnel Manager, working in the managerial capacity, will also come within the purview of persons eligible to get gratuity as payable under the Act. The position in this regard, as well as the eligibility of the petitioner to have the gratuity paid in tune with the norms under the Act is conceded from the part of 4th respondent as well. 4. Section 13 and 14 of the Act, which are relevant to decide the case is hand are extracted below: "13. Protection of gratuity - No gratuity as payable under this Act [and no gratuity payable to an employee employed in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop exempted under section 5] shall be liable to attachment in execution of any decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal court". "14. Act to override other enactments, etc - The provisions of this Act or any rule made there under shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act" Section 13 says that absolute protection has been provided in respect of gratuity payable under the Act, clearly stipulating that the same shall not be liable for attachment, in execution of any decree or order of Civil Court, Revenue, or Criminal Court. Simultaneously it is mentioned under Section 14, that provisions of the Act or any rule made there under shall have overriding effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent thereto contained in any other enactment or instrument of contract as specified therein. Simultaneously it is mentioned under Section 14, that provisions of the Act or any rule made there under shall have overriding effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent thereto contained in any other enactment or instrument of contract as specified therein. Considering the sustainability of Ext.R1 (a) agreement stated as executed by the petitioner in the above background, it has to be noted that, though the petitioner had agreed to have recovery from his salary and also from his terminal benefits, the protection given in respect of the portion constituting gratuity stands in tact, by virtue of the statutory provision as referred to herein before. In other words, even though the agreement made by the petitioner vide Ext.R1(a) may be valid and enforceable in respect of the recovery of his salary and other terminal benefits, Gratuity stands on a different footing (amount due under the Provident Fund also stands on an equal or more footing by virtue of similar statutory bar, though does not form subject matter of the writ Petition) and is free from any attachment. This also gathers support from the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Som Prakash Rekhi Vs. Union of India (1981 (1) SCC 499 paragraphs 62 and 67). 5. In the above facts and circumstances, Ext.R1(a) cannot have any significance at all, with respect to the extent of Gratuity payable to the petitioner and it is declared accordingly. This being the position, the 4th respondent is directed to disburse the exact amount of Gratuity payable to the petitioner under the 'Act', notwithstanding Ext.P4 prohibitory order issued by the 3rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the respondents 1 and 2 from realizing the dues from other amounts, if any, payable to the petitioner, on the strength of Ext.P4. The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. No cost.