Short answer. Yes. Labor Code Article 116 makes it unlawful for any person to withhold any amount from a worker's wages, or to induce the worker to give up any part of those wages, by force, stealth, intimidation, threat or any other means whatsoever without the worker's consent. A demand framed as a kickback is exactly the conduct the article targets.
What the law says
Withholding of wages and kickbacks prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to withhold any amount from the wages of a worker or induce him to give up any part of his wages by force, stealth, intimidation, threat or by any other means whatsoever without the worker’s consent.
Labor Code, Article 116 — Withholding And Kickbacks Prohibited. Read the full provision →
The article covers the demand, not just the deduction
A kickback scheme rarely looks like an outright payroll deduction; more often it is a demand made after wages are already paid, asking the worker to hand part of it back. Article 116 is written broadly enough to reach that: it prohibits inducing a worker to give up any part of his wages, not only withholding wages before they are paid. Whether the money changes hands before or after payday, the article treats extracting it from the worker's earnings the same way.
"Any person", not only the employer whose name is on the payroll
The prohibition is not limited to the entity that technically employs you. It applies to any person, directly or indirectly, who withholds wages or pressures a worker into giving part of them up. A supervisor, an intermediary, or anyone else standing between the worker and full payment of wages can violate this article, which matters where the person making the kickback demand is not the one who signs the payroll itself.
Consent has to be real, not extracted
The article lists the means it treats as unlawful: force, stealth, intimidation, threat, or any other means whatsoever, all qualified by the phrase without the worker's consent. A worker who hands money back because refusing risks the job has not given the kind of free consent that would take the transaction outside this prohibition; the pressure of losing employment is itself a form of the coercion the article is written to reach, even where nothing said aloud sounds like an outright threat.
What the article does not spell out
Article 116 establishes that the conduct is unlawful; it does not itself set out a filing procedure, name an office that handles complaints, or list specific penalties for a violation. Those mechanics live outside the text quoted here, so this page will not guess at them. What the article makes clear is that a demand to return part of your salary, made under any pressure short of your genuine consent, is not a private matter between you and whoever is asking.