1. This is a Judgment-debtor's revision against the order dt.30-11-78, passed by the Addl. II Munsiff, Bangalore in Ex. Case No. 754/78.
2. The decree-holder filed the execution to recover Rs.785/- still remaining in arrears regarding the decree obtained by him in O.S.536/73. He got attached profit sharing bonus payable to the first Judgment-debtor (Jdr.). The first Jdr. appeared and contended that the bonus cannot be attached and he prayed for the raising of the attachment. The lower-court overruled the objections of the Jdr. Hence the revision by the Jdr. No. 1.
3. Learned counsel Basavaraj placed before me the ruling in Western India Cottons Limited v. N. Raghavan, 1976 Lab IC 271 (Ker) wherein it is held:
'In considering whether bonus is wages for the purposes of exemption from attachment under the C.P.C., the definition of the word 16wage' in the Industrial Disputes Act or Payment of Wages Act, is of no assistance. The definitions in those acts are intended for the purposes of respective acts only. The C.P.C. speaks of 'wages' of labourers and leaves it to the courts to understand the concept of that term in the context of a particular case. There is 'wages' in general, or the genus of wages, which includes of payments made to an employee arising out of the relationship and 'wages' in the narrower or special sense which connects a periodical payment. While different enactments deal with the latter kind of wages, the C.P.C. deals with wages as genus.
Therefore, the view of the court below that the bonus does not come within the ambit of wages cannot be substained.
4. S. 60(h) under which the exemption is claimed by the Jdr. speaks, 'the wages of labourers and domestic servants, whether payable in money or kind'. Therefore, the wages of labourers and domestic servants alone are exempted under S. 60(h). The meaning given to a labourer in the Industrial Disputes Act or in the Payment of Wages Act or other special acts is meant only for purposes of those Acts. The meaning given to the 'labourer' under the said Acts cannot have any relevance while understanding the word, 'Labourer' or 'domestic servant' used in S. 60(h) C. P.C. It is true that in the said Kerala case the Kerala High Court held that the meaning of the word, 'labourer' given in the said Acts was meant only for the purposes of the said Acts. If it is so, even the meaning of the word 'labourer' used in those acts would have to be confined to those Acts only. Learned Author Mulla in C.P.C. 13th edition, 298 has stated, 'a 'labourer' is a person who earns his daily bread by personal manual labour, or in occupations which require little or no art, skill or previous education.' He has further stated, 'thus persons who agree to spin cotton and to receive a certain amount of money for a certain quantity of cotton spun by them are labourers, and their wages cannot be attached. A weaver in a textile mill is a labourer within this proviso but not a clerk'. If a Clerk cannot be considered to be a 'labourer' the Jdr, who is admittedly working as a draughtsman in BEML, cannot be considered to be a labourer at all. The job of a draughtsman does not involve much manual labour out involves a great deal of head and brain and much less of hands. The art practised by him depends upon the previous education which he has acquired. Therefore the Jdr. who is admittedly a draughtsman cannot be termed as a 'labourer' within the meaning of S. 60(h).
5. Therefore, the order passed by the court below is affirmed, though for different reasons. The revision is dismissed. No costs in this revision.
6. Revision dismissed.