BHIKARI BEHARA Vs. DHANAPATIE BENTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a rule obtained under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 5 of 1908, by the judgment-debtor whose application under Section 47 ibid fails in the court of first instance and thereafter before the Full Bench of the Small Cause Court, Calcutta.

(2.) The judgment-debtor, the petitioner before me, is a winchman working under the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. And the interesting question Mr. Sanyal, appearing in support of the rule, has raised is: can he be regarded as a labourer within the meaning of Section 60, Sub-section (1), Clause (h), of the Code of Civil Procedure. To the language in the statute first. The proviso to Section 60, Sub-section (1), lists properties which shall not be liable to attachment in execution of a decree. Clause (h) comes thereunder. It bears: "(h) the wages of labourers and domestic servants, whether payable in money or kind."

(3.) Such then is the language of the statute. Does the petitioner, a winchman under the Dock Labour Board, come under this ? A domestic servant he is not. But, is he or is he not a labourer ? If he is a labourer, Mr. Sanyal is right; his wages are not liable to be attached. If, however, he is not a labourer, Mr. Mitter who opposes this rule is equally right, his wages are not exempt from attachment.