SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(AP) 370

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.R.RAO
JAYANTHI RATHNAMMA - Appellant
Versus
Z.SAMUEL - Respondent
Decided On : 09-22-86

The expression "labourer" in sec. 60 (1) (h) C. P. C. should be interpreted in light of the explanation appended to the section, which includes skilled, unskilled, or semi-skilled labourers. However, the basic attribute of manual labour subsists even when skill is associated with it in varying degrees. The work expected of categories such as clerks, linemen, and firemen is neither manual work nor mere physical exertion, but requires some training and skill. Therefore, such categories cannot be considered as labourers and their wages are not exempt from attachment under sec. 60 (1) (h) C. P. C.

Headnote:

ATTACHMENT OF WAGES - WAGES OF LABOURERS AND DOMESTIC SERVANTS - EXEMPTION FROM ATTACHMENT - INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 60 (1) (H) C. P. C. - WHO IS A LABOURER - SKILLED OR UNSKILLED - MANUAL LABOUR OR PHYSICAL EXERTION - TRAINING OR SKILL REQUIRED - CLERKS, LINEMEN AND FIREMEN - WHETHER LABOURERS - HELD, NOT LABOURERS - WAGES NOT EXEMPT FROM ATTACHMENT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed revision petitions against the orders holding that the bonus paid to the respondents, who were employed as a lineman, firman, clerk, and fireman, were not liable for attachment under sec. 60 (1) (h) C. P. C. The court below held that the respondents were unskilled persons and untrained workmen, and therefore, the bonus payable to them was included in the remuneration and should be considered as wage, which is exempt from attachment.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the respondents, who were employed as a clerk, lineman, and fireman, could not be considered as labourers within the meaning of sec. 60 (1) (h) C. P. C. The court observed that the work expected of such categories is neither manual work nor mere physical exertion, but requires some training and skill. The court further held that the wages of the respondents were not exempt from attachment under sec. 60 (1) (h) C. P. C.

Issues: Whether the respondents, who were employed as a clerk, lineman, and fireman, could be considered as labourers within the meaning of sec. 60 (1) (h) C. P. C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the expression "labourer" in sec. 60 (1) (h) C. P. C. in light of the explanation appended to the section, which includes skilled, unskilled, or semi-skilled labourers. The court held that the basic attribute of manual labour subsists even when skill is associated with it in varying degrees. However, the court observed that the work expected of categories such as clerks, linemen, and firemen is neither manual work nor mere physical exertion, but requires some training and skill. The court concluded that the respondents could not be considered as labourers and were not entitled to the benefit under sec. 60 (1) (h) C. P. C.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petitions and set aside the order of the court below, holding that the wages of the respondents were not exempt from attachment under sec. 60 (1) (h) C. P. C.

P. R. RAO, J.

( 1 ) THESE revision petitions are against the orders holding that the bonus paid to the respondents are not liable for attachment under sec. 60 (1) (h) C. P. C. In C. R. P -. No. 3719 of 1984 the respondent was a lineman now working as a clerk; in CRP. No. 3720/84 the respondent is a firman ; in CRP. No. 3721/84 the respondent is working as a clerk and in CRP No. 3722/84 the respondent is working as a fireman. The court below held that since the respondents herein have to exert physically to do the job assigned to them they have to be considered as an unskilled persons and untrained workmen. It is further held that the bonus payable to them is included in the remuneration and such remuneration should be considered as wage.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents even by the designation given to their employment cannot be considered as labourers and the nature of work entrusted to these jobs is the result of training and it cannot be merely stated as an unskilled manual work.

( 3 ) TO appreciate this contention it is necessary to get at sec. 60 (1) (h) CPC. Sub-sec. 60 (1) (h) reads as follows : " (h) the wages of labourers and domestic servants, whether payable in money or in kind". Sec. 60 while enumerating the properties liable to be attached exempted certain categories of properties from attachment pursuant to the execution of the decree and among such categories clause (h) is concerned with wages of labourers and domestic servants. The issue falls for consideration is whether the respondents herein can be considered as labourers.

( 4 ) AT the outset it must be stated that wages comprises remuneration on daily basis or per mensem. Though in general parlance the monthly remuneration is called salary, the expression wages does not preclude payment of money on monthly basis. With a view to amplify the expressions wages and labourer explanation IV is appended and it is as follows: "for the purpose of this proviso, "wages" includes bonus, and "labourer" includes a skilled, unskilled or semi-skilled labourer".

( 5 ) THE expression wages in general parlance is associated with payment of remuneration for manual labour and it is useful to get at diverse shades of denotation. Webster (International Dictionary of English Language 1927 ). 1. Pay given for labour, usually manual or mechanical, at short stated intervals, as distinguished from salaries or fees. xx xx xx murray (New English Dictionary ). A payment to a person for services rendered. Formerly used widely, eg. , for the salary or fees paid to persons of official or professional status. Now (in rhetorical- language) restricted to mean ; the amount paid periodically, esp. by the day or week or month for the labour or service of a workman or servant. Stroud s Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4 p. 3243 "though this word might be said to include payment for any services, yet, in general, the word "salary" is used for payment of services of a higher class, and "wages", is confined to the earnings of labourers and artisans". Though such restricted connotation is attributed to the expression "wages" wide and comprehensive ambit is given by statutes. The payment of Wages act defines "wages" as follows (in ATR 1957 Madras 773 ). "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 person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes any bonus or other additional remuneration of thenalure aforesaid". The concept of wages is as the same under Minimum Wages Act; Shops and establishments Act and Workman s Compersation Act In Vo. 67 Corpus juris Secondum ai pages 284-285 it is stated as follows :"as generally defined, however, the term means compens


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top