K.K. Thankappan vs Catholic Syrian Bank

M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.—The question that arises for decision in this revision is mainly whether a Carpenter earning daily wages will come under the classification ''Labourer'' entitled to the benefit of exemption u/s 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

1.75 Ares of land along with the residential building and appurtenances thereto wherein the 1st judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 431/93 is residing was proclaimed for sale. The motion was opposed on the ground that the properties are exempt u/s 60(1)(c) of the CPC The court below considered the question and found that he is not an agriculturist or a labourer entitled to protection under the said section. It was directed that the execution proceedings be continued as proposed.

Section 60(1)(c) of the CPC reads as follows:

Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree.-(1) The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely, lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank-notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, Government securities, bonds or other securities for money, debts, shares in a corporation and, sale as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property, movable or immovable, belonging to the judgments debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit, whether the same be held in the name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his. behalf:

(a) * * * *(b) * * * * (c) Houses and other buildings (with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to [an agriculturist or a labourer or a domestic servant] and occupied by him;

There is an explanation IV to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows:

Explanation IV-For the purposes of this proviso, ''wages'' includes bonus, and "labourer'' includes a skilled, unskilled or semi-skilled labourer.

It is obious from a joint reading of the aforesaid provisions that a labourer getting wages for skilled, unskilled or semiskilled work is also entitled to the protection of sefction 60(1)(c) of the CPC The question therefore is whether a Carpenter is a skilled, unskilled or semiskilled labourer.

Reliance was placed on the decision in Challa Ramaiah and Another Vs. Desu Guruvaiah, ) in support of the revision Petitioner''s said contention. In that case Mason was declared to be a ''labourer'' for the purpose of Section 60(1)(c). It is argued that by drawing necessary analogy a Carpenter is also to be found as a labourer entitled to get the benefit.

''Labourer'', according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, is a person who does manual labour or work for wages. The term ''skill'' under the same dictionary means developed or acquired ability and the word is synonymous with craft, dexterity, expertise, knowhow etc. According to the Oxford dictionary, a manual worker is a workman and the term ''skill'' means talent, expertise, abtitude, adeptness, mastery, dexterity, proficiency etc. Labourer is a person who earns his daily bread by personal manual labour. Carpenter is hence a skilled labourer in so far as he does Work on timber, constructs houses etc. for daily wage using his skill. There is no doubt at all therefore that a Carpenter, like agriculturists and other manual labourers, is also entitled to protection u/s 60(1)(c) of the CPC The fact that the Petitioner has not been working for some time does not alter his status.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent, during hearing, placed reliance on the decision in Kunjamma George v. Velayudhan (1980 KLT 483) to contend that Carpenter doing skilled work is not a labourer. A reading of the decision, however, showis that the question that was considered in that case was only whether a junior operator in a boiler house would be a labourer. It was found that he is not. Learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner has rightly brought to my notice the fact that it was through an amendment to the CPC brought in 1976 that the present Explanation IV (already mentioned supra) was introduced. The aforesaid decision in Kunjamrpa George''s case (1980 KLT 483) way rendered in a case which arose before that amendment and that too on totally different facts. The decision has therefore no application to the facts of this case.

A Carpenter doing manual work and getting wages for his work is certainly a labourer entitled to the benefit of Section 60(1)(c) of the CPC The impugned order is hence set aside and it is declared that the Petitioner is entitled to get the protection of Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Revision is disposed of as above.