ITTA NARASIMHA RAO Vs. AKULA MAHALAKSHMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts in this revision petition are few and beyond dispute. The decree-holder (respondent before me) filed an execution petition under Order XXI, Rules 46 and 48, civil Procedure Code, for attachment of the bonus of the petitioner (judgment-debtor) declared as due to him by the Andhra cement Company, Ltd. , Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as "the company "), for the year 1965, by the issue of a prohibitory order. It was resisted by the Judgment-debtor on the ground that bonus is not liable to attachment under Section 60 (1) (h), civil Procedure Code. The Judgment-debtor is admittedly an unskilled workman, getting a monthly remuneration of Rs. 164 including all allowances. As per the starting orders of the company, he is not entrussed with any clerical or technical work, requiring exercise of powers of intellect or skill, and his services are utilized only for doing manual labour. It has been found by the learned District Munsif. and it has not been disputed before me. that the remuneration paid to the judgment-debtor every month is " wagss of labour" within the meaning of Section 60 (1) (h) of the civil Procedure come. Tne argument on behalf of the decrae-holder, which found favour with the District Masaif, was that the bonus for the year 1965 declared by the company is not a part of " wages" and, therefore, not exempt from attachment. Certain decisions were oited by him before the learned District Muasif. but he chose to follow the definition of " salary " or " wage" given in Section 2 (21) of the Payment of Bonus Act (61 of 1965) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and held that the word "wage" in Civil Procedure code does not include " bonus " and therefore bonus is not exempt from attachment, and accordingly ordered execution to proceed in respect of the bonus.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this decision. the Judgment-debtor has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) SRI M. Subramanyam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner (Judgment-debtor), contends that the view of the lower Court is unsustainable.