JAGANNATH Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is by the judgment -debtor. In execution of a decree obtained against him the decree -holder sought attachment of the bonus for the period 1974 -75 which was to be paid to the judgment debtor. The attachment was opposed on the ground that bonus formed part of wages and, as such, the same could not be attached under section 60(1)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lower Court held that clause (21) of section 2 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, which defined the term "salary or wage" expressly excluded 'bonus' from the definition. It was thus clear that bonus could not form part of 'salary or wages'. In this view of the matter, the attachment of bonus was directed by the lower Court. The judgment debtor has, therefore, preferred this revision. 1965 MPLJ 276 the question was as to whether gratuity payable to an unskilled labourer at the time of his retirement could be attached or whether it was included in "wages" the attachment of which was protected under section 60(1)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure. A Division Bench of this Court observed in that case : -

(2.) THE real point is that trying to get an answer from the definition of the word in the enactments of a special nature is bound to lead only to confusion. Each of these enactments was made with the special purpose of giving the employee a certain amount of protection in regard to particular periodical payments and welfare contributions. It is not the aim of anyone of these enactments to guarantee to the employee everything that would be payable to him under agreement or statute or regular practice in the business, but only to guarantee certain specific payments most often of periodic nature; besides, the very exclusions would indicate, that without them wages might include the categories of payments thus excluded. So we have to approach the question in the light of recent welfare labour legislation The Civil Procedure Code itself speaks of 'wages of labourers' and leaves it to the Courts to understand by 'wages' what in the context of the particular cases before them it would connote."

(3.) THE order of the lower Court directing the issuance of warrant of attachment in terms of Order 21, rule 46, Civil Procedure Code, is set aside I may, however, mention that under the Civil Procedure Code a distinction has been made between wages earned by a labourer and the salary earned by other kind of employee. In case of wages earned by a labourer there is complete exemption, while in case of other employees the exemption is partial. In this particular case, the lower Court does not appear to have applied its mind to this aspect of the matter. It is not decided as to whether the judgment -debtor is a labourer or other kind of employee. It was suggested at the Bar that the judgment -debtor is working as a peon and does not come within the definition of a 'labourer. I do not wish to record any finding on that point and leave it open to the executing Court to decide the question on the material that may be placed before it.