Shreedharan Peethambaran vs Krishnan Sanku

M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.—Revision-petitioner is the judgment-debtor in E. A. 727/85 in E.P. 290/84 in O. S. 827/79 of the Munsiff Court, Sherthailai. The E. A. was filed for attaching the bonus due to the judgment-debtor. Judgment-debtor contended that the bonus due to him is not liable to attachment. The executing Court overruled the objections and made absolute the order of attachment.

The short question that falls for decision in this revision petition is as to whether the bonus due to the revision-petitioner a salaried employee is attachable or not. The contention of the revision-petitioner is that the bonus due to a skilled worker like him is not attachable. Revision-petitioner is a driver of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (K.S.R.T.C.). Counsel for the respondent contends that the revision-petitioner gets monthly salary from the K.S.R.T.C. and so the bonus due to him is liable to attachment.

u/s 60(1)(h), C.P.C. the wages of labourers and domestic servants, whether payable in money or kind are exempted from attachment. Explanation IV makes it clear that for the purposes of the proviso "wages" includes bonus, and "labourer" includes a skilled, unskilled or semi-skilled labourer. Counsel for the revision-petitioner argued that the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus is a skilled worker and therefore his wages are exempt from attachment. Counsel for the respondent contended that the revision-petitioner being a salaried employee cannot claim benefit u/s 60(1)(h) and Explanation IV.

Section 60(1), C.P.C. declares the categories of properties that are liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree. Section 60(1)(i) stipulates that salary to the extent of the first Rs. 400/- and two-thirds of the remainder cannot be attached in execution of any decree other than a decree for maintenance. So far as the salary of the judgment-debtor is concerned he gets the benefit to the extent provided under the aforesaid provision.

Whether the bonus due to the judgment-debtor who gets monthly salary is liable for exemption from attachment is the moot question. Section 60(1)(h) exempts the wages of the labourers and domestic servants and Explanation IV makes it clear that the wages includes bonus and labourer includes a skilled or unskilled or semi-skilled labourer. It is the admitted case that the revision-petitioner gets monthly salary from the K.S.R.T.C. The only provision which enables the Court to calculate the attachable portion of the salary is Section 60(1)(i).

So far as salaried persons are conceded Section 60(1)(i) is the only provision which enables the Court to determine the limit of the attachability. There is no provision in the C.P.C. which would enable the revision-petitioner to contend that his bonus cannot be attached. As the revision-petitioner gets monthly salary he cannot contend that the bonus due to him is not liable to be attached. So far as persons who get salary are concerned there is no provision which bars the Court from attaching the bonus due to them.

There is no merit in the C.R.P. and hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.