RATHNAMMA Vs. SAMUEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions are against the orders holding that the bonus paid to the respondents are not liable for attachment under sec. 60 (1) (h) C.P.C. In C.R.P-. No. 3719 of 1984 the respondent was a lineman now working as a clerk; in CRP.No. 3720/84 the respondent is a firman ; in CRP. No. 3721/84 the respondent is working as a clerk and in CRP No. 3722/84 the respondent is working as a fireman. The court below held that since the respondents herein have to exert physically to do the job assigned to them they have to be considered as an unskilled persons and untrained workmen. It is further held that the bonus payable to them is included in the remuneration and such remuneration should be considered as wage.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents even by the designation given to their employment cannot be considered as labourers and the nature of work entrusted to these jobs is the result of training and it cannot be merely stated as an unskilled manual work.

(3.) To appreciate this contention it is necessary to get at sec. 60 (1) (h) CPC. Sub-sec. 60 (1) (h) reads as follows : "(h) the wages of labourers and domestic servants, whether payable in money or in kind". Sec. 60 while enumerating the properties liable to be attached exempted certain categories of properties from attachment pursuant to the execution of the decree and among such categories clause (h) is concerned with wages of labourers and domestic servants. The issue falls for consideration is whether the respondents herein can be considered as labourers.