( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4026 OF 2010 Regional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS Ambadas s/o Pandurang Wahatule RESPONDENT ..... Mr. Y.T. Thole, advocate for the petitioner. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 3rd May, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The respondent was in service of the petitioner – M.S.R.T.C. He entered into an agreement with the petitioner for allowing the petitioner to deduct amounts from his pay, bonus and gratuity, etc. towards recovery of the loan amount which was obtained by him from the S.T. Cooperative Bank. The petitioner wanted to recover the amount and, therefore, allegedly deducted the said amount from the gratuity payable to him. ( 2 ) 3. The competent authority held that such amount of gratuity cannot be subjected to any kind of attachment or withholding due to recovery. The competent authority i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner directed the petitioner to pay difference of amount of gratuity to the respondent – employee. The petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by virtue of the impugned order in appeal No. PGA-68/2009. The appellate authority confirmed the order of the competent authority as regards immunity from the attachment of the gratuity amount payable to the respondent. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent executed an agreement and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to deduct the amount of loan as per consent given by the respondent. He would submit that under terms of the agreement, which was binding on the respondent, the recovery could be effected. I do not agree. Any consent which is against the law would not be binding on a party. The Legislative intent is explicit not only from the relevant provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, but also from section 60, Proviso (g) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion, therefore, the concurrent findings of the competent authorities are quite within framework of law. The right of the respondent could not have been waived by his alleged ( 3 ) consent. The recovery can be effected from the other payments or by deducting the amounts from the payments of the guarantor, as may be permissible under the law, or in any other manner as may be permissible under the law. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp4026-2010