MUHAMMAD Vs. RUCKEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this appeal is, whether the bonus received by the judgment debtor appellant, is exempted from attachment under S.60(1) proviso Cl. (h) of the Civil Procedure Code. That clause exempts from attachment, the wages of labourers and domestic servants whether payable in money or in kind. The bonus paid to the appellant by his employer, was under the provisions of the Memorandum of Settlement between the employer and the employees, which is Ext. D1, the relevant clauses of which are 27 and 29. The material part of Clause.27 is as follows:

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to other decided cases, which, according to him, support his contention that bonus whether dependent on profits or not, forms part of the wages so as to be exempt from attachment under S.60(1) proviso clause [h]. In P. Nathmal Sanchethi v. Dasarath (AIR 1959 Mysore 96) the right to bonus was based on an agreement between the representatives of the workmen and of the management; on the provisions of the agreement, the learned Judge held, that the payment by way of bonus was not ex gratia and that there was no material to conclude, that it was given as a share of the profits. It was also held, that bonus was intended to be by way of addition to the wages. In Jivan Lal Kandas v. Ramtuji Bhaiji (AIR 1945 Bombay 119) the payment of bonus was dependent upon the kind of work turned out by the workmen and the number of days for which they worked, and this was construed to mean a temporary increase in the wages. On this ground, this case was distinguished by the Calcutta High Court in the case cited. Heriji Malla v. Kersanji Vakhatchand (AIR 1954 Saurashtra 19) has relied on the Bombay case; but from the facts set forth in the opening paragraph of the judgment it does not appear, that the payment of bonus was contingent upon the accrual of profits, although it does appear, that it was paid out of the profits. In A. Muniswami v.

(3.) It was faintly argued, relying on Clause.29 of Ext. D1, that bonus is always payable at minimum rate whether profits accrued or not. Even in Clause.29, there is an element of contingency, in that bonus is not payable if the profit is turned into a loss. In my opinion, the appellant cannot build a case of exemption from attachment under S.60(1) proviso clause [h], C.P.C., upon Clause.27 and 29 of Ext. D1. It seems to me, that the case here is on all fours with the Calcutta case. The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.