Skip to content


S.P. Krishna Rao Vs. Thimurshakhan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 240 of 1968
Judge
Reported inAIR1970Mad135; (1969)2MLJ241
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 60(1) and 115
AppellantS.P. Krishna Rao
RespondentThimurshakhan and anr.
Appellant AdvocateS. Ramasubramaniam, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateP.S. Ramachandran, Adv.
Cases ReferredGanapathi Pillai v. Swaminatha Pillai
Excerpt:
- .....not a labourer within the meaning of section 60(1) proviso (h) of the civil procedure code and the bonus paid to him cannot be deemed to be beyond the pale of attachment. but whether he is a mechanic or a labourer has not been gone into by the court below, and this has to be ascertained as a question of fact. both the parties, therefore, agree that there is no material on which i can base my decision whether he is a mechanic or a labourer. it is advisable that this matter is remitted after setting aside the order of the lower court for a further consideration in the light of the observations made above. accordingly, the order of the lower court is set aside and the matter remitted to the file of the district munsif of coimbatore for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ramaprasada Rao, J.

1. The learned Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, relying upon the decision in Munuswami v. Viswanathan Nair, : AIR1957Mad773 . allowed a petition under Section 60(h) of the Civil Procedure Code in execution of a decree for money by attaching the bonus of the respondent who is reported to be a mechanic. But Mr. Ramasubramaniam, brought to my notice the latest judgment of Veeraswami, J., in C. R. P. No. 1952 of : (1969)IILLJ159aMad , Ganapathi Pillai v. Swaminatha Pillai who held that payment of bonus is a method of payment of wages. He also observed;

'No doubt, payment of bonus is conditional upon payment of wages. But once bonus is paid, it has the true attribute of wages.'

Here, he relied upon a decision of the Mysore High Court reported in P. Nathmal V. Dasarath, AIR 1959 Mys 96. It has to be noted that this judgment was rendered after the passing of the Madras Payment of Bonus Act of 1985. There has been chameleonic changes in the law of bonus having regard to the various economic and social strains to accord industrial peace in our country. In this view, the learned Judge, with whom I respectfully agree, was of the opinion that bonus should form part of wage. The order of the Court below cannot stand.

2. Mr. P. S. Ramachandran, however, contended that the petitioner is a mechanic and therefore not a labourer within the meaning of Section 60(1) proviso (h) of the Civil Procedure Code and the bonus paid to him cannot be deemed to be beyond the pale of attachment. But whether he is a mechanic or a labourer has not been gone into by the Court below, and this has to be ascertained as a question of fact. Both the parties, therefore, agree that there is no material on which I can base my decision whether he is a mechanic or a labourer. It is advisable that this matter is remitted after setting aside the order of the lower Court for a further consideration in the light of the observations made above. Accordingly, the order of the lower Court is set aside and the matter remitted to the file of the District Munsif of Coimbatore for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of my judgment. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //