JIVANLAL KANDAS Vs. RAMTUJI BHAIJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application arises out of darkhast proceedings. The petitioner obtained a decree for about Rs. 140 against the opponents, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are labourers in a textile mill at Ahmedabad, in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad. Thereafter he filed a darkhast and applied for the attachment of the amounts of bonus for the year 1942 which the judgment-debtors were to receive sometime-in the beginning of 1943. Notices were issued to the judgment-debtors and they resisted the darkhast on the ground inter alia that the amounts sought to be attached were part of their wages and that under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, no part of their wages could be attached. This contention was upheld by the execution Court which dismissed the application. It held that the payment of bonus which the judgment-debtors were to receive must be deemed to be " by way of additional reward or remuneration to the employee for the labour rendered " by them and that, therefore, such bonus took the character of a part of their wages.

(2.) Mr. Dhruva, on behalf of the plaintiff-applicant, has contended that the bonus should not be regarded as part of the wages of the judgment-debtors, because it was decided to grant such bonus in a lump as a measure of encouraging saving by the workmen, not being payable under any term of the original contract between the mills and their labourers, and that it can also be regarded as an amount paid in order to encourage more efficient work by the labourers.

(3.) The expression " wages" has been denned both in Workmen's Compensation Act, VIII of 1923, and Payment of Wages Act, IV of 1936. Under the first Act " Wages " is thus denned in Section 2(2) (m) : Wages includes any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money, other than a travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession or a contribution paid by the employer of a workman towards any pension or provident fund or a sum paid to a workman to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment. Mr. Dhruva has further contended that the bonus in the present case comes within the last part of this definition, i.e. it is " a sum paid to at workman to cover special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment." The " special expenses, according to him, include the higher cost of living prevailing at the present time. This argument does not appear to have any substance in my judgment, as even if such expenses can be regarded as covering special expenses entailed on the workman, it cannot be said that they are so entitled " by the nature of his employment." The higher cost of living would affect all members of society irrespective of whether they were mill labourers or otherwise employed. The definition of wages in the Payment of Wages Act, which is to be found in Section 2 (vi) of that Act, reads thus : Wages means all remuneration, capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable, whether conditionally upon the regular attendance, good work or conduct or other behaviour of the person employed, or otherwise, to a peraton employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes any bonus or other additional remuneration of the nature aforesaid which would be so payable and any sum payable to such person by reason of the termination of his employment.... Mr. Dhruva's argument in connection with this definition is that as it specifically states that wages includes bonus, such definition must be taken to be for the special purposes of the Payment of Wages Act alone, and it ought to be held, therefore, that but for the inclusion of bonus in wages they would ordinarily be excluded from the meaning of the expression. It does not seem to me, however, that such a conclusion follows inevitably from the wording of the definition. The inclusion of bonus might show no more than an intention to put it beyond all doubt that for the purposes of the Act bonus is included in wages. It does not, therefore, appear to me that either of the two definitions quoted above is very helpful in the determination of the question whether bonus is ordinarily to be included within the meaning of the expression " wages." The definition in the Payment of Wages Act refers in the beginning to the terms of the contract of employment, and payment of bonus is no doubt ordinarily outside such terms. The definition in the Workmen's Compensation Act does not refer to any terms of employment, and prima, facie the expression "benefit" therein would perhaps include the payment of bonus.