KEHAR SINGH KANWAR PAL SINGH Vs. PURAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kehar Singh petitions had obtained a decree from the Small Cause Court against Puran Singh respondent to Rs. 317A in 1957. In execution of the decree he obtained on order of attachment of bonus payable to Puran Singh by the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. by which Puran Singh was employed as a labourer. Puran Singh objected under Section 47 Civil Procedure Code, that the bonus was not liable to attachment in execution under Section 60(1) (h) of the Civil Procedure Code which exempts from attachment the wages of labourers and domestic servants whether payable in money or kind. The executing Court upheld the judgment-debtor's objection and the decree-holder has filed this revision petition.

(2.) The learned Single Judge before whom the revision petition came up for hearing about a year ago referred it to a larger Bench because there appeared to be a conflict between the decisions of the Saurashtra High Court in Harji Malla v. Karsanji Vekhatchand, AIR 1954 Sau 19, and the Madras High Court in Chhinaswami v. Ponginanna Goundar, AIR 1957 Madras 40 on the question whether bonus payable to a labourer is included in the word 'wages' or not.

(3.) This supposed conflict seems to be more apparent than real, since in the Madras decision it was found as a matter of fact that the so-called bonus in that case was an ex gratia payment by the employer, and even in that case the principle was, recognised that whether bonus is paid by statute or by agreement it becomes part of an employee's wages. In the Saurashtra case it was held that the bonus paid to the labourers employed in a mill from time to time is part of their wages within the meaning of Section 60(1) (h) and the view expressed in Jivan Lal v. Ramtuji Bhaiji, AIR 1945 Bom 119, was followed.