A winchman under the Calcutta Dock Labour Board, requiring training and skill to perform his duties, is not a labourer within the meaning of Section 60(1)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and his wages are not exempt from attachment.

( 1 ) THIS is a rule obtained under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 5 of 1908, by the judgment-debtor whose application under Section 47 ibid fails in the court of first instance and thereafter before the Full Bench of the Small Cause Court, Calcutta.

( 2 ) THE judgment-debtor, the petitioner before me, is a winchman working under the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. And the interesting question Mr. Sanyal, appearing in support of the rule, has raised is: can he be regarded as a labourer within the meaning of Section 60, Sub-section (1), Clause (h), of the Code of Civil Procedure. To the language in the statute first. The proviso to Section 60, Sub-section (1), lists properties which shall not be liable to attachment in execution of a decree. Clause (h) comes thereunder. It bears: " (h) the wages of labourers and domestic servants, whether payable in money or kind. "

( 3 ) SUCH then is the language of the statute. Does the petitioner, a winchman under the Dock Labour Board, come under this ? A domestic servant he is not. But, is he or is he not a labourer ? If he is a labourer, Mr. Sanyal is right; his wages are not liable to be attached. If, however, he is not a labourer, Mr. Mitter who opposes this rule is equally right, his wages are not exempt from attachment.

( 4 ) THE fact that labourers and domestic servants have been placed in the same category has a significance all its own. And, as pointed out in Muniswami v. Viswanatha, 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, If the yardstick be that, it goes without saying that the Courts below are right. And the petitioner before me cannot be regarded as a labourer within the meaning of Section 60, Sub-section (1), Clause (h) of the proviso thereto. Because evidence is overwhelming that he is not a manual labourer only. He has had to undergo a training. Without training, no one can serve as a winchman. That is the evidence which has been accepted by the two Courts of facts. Mr. Sanyal, on the other hand, invites my attention to the evidence of an Inspector of the Dock Labour Board, Arun Roy by name. He is the petitioner's witness No. 1. But his evidence is such that it has not inspired belief in the Courts below, though, I am free to confess, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Sanyal, the Full Bench of Calcutta Small Cause Court is silent about it. All the same, his evidence is such that it cannot stand. He asks the Court to believe that no sort of a training is a precondition for the appointment of a winchman. In that, he appears to be wrong, whether deliberately or not, I need not say. Because, Rule 21 of the Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1956, Mr. Sanyal has been good enough to hand over to me, bears:"21. Facilities for Training.-- The Board shall make provision for training of suitable registered workers in the duties of Winchmen and Riggers or in any other duties like signalling etc. , that it may deem necessary". And, still, an Inspector of the Board will have the Court believe that no manner of training is required for employment as a winchman: So, that way Mr. Sanyal's point cannot succeed.

( 5 ) BUT he has been good enough to refer me to a decision of the Bombay High Court, namely. Mansuri Ibrahim Mahamed v. Shetti Kantilal Balabhai, where Gajendragadkar J. , as he then was, held that a weaver in a textile mill is a labourer within the meaning of Section 60, Sub-section (1), Clause (h) of the proviso thereto. Gajendragadkar J. referred to certain earlier cases of the Bombay High Court as well. But, can I equate a weaver with a winchman, as I see before me, on the basis of the Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1956? A weaver is a weaver and a winchman is a winchman. I shall not deny that some skill is required in the work of a weaver too. Even then, it will not be right on my part