The protection against attachment of wages and bonus under S.60(1) proviso (h) applies only to laborers or domestic servants, and the protection afforded by the statute against attachment cannot be circumvented by other indirect methods like garnishee proceedings.

1. Judgment-debtor is the revision petitioner. In execution of the decree the attachable portion of his salary was under attachment for a continuous period of 24 months. Thereafter the decree holder initiated garnishee proceedings by attachment of the arrears of salary and bonus due from the employer to the judgment-debtor and the garnishee deposited Rs. 1,552/-. Overruling the objection of the judgment-debtor the amount was ordered to be attached. Revision is against that order.

2. The first contention was under the proviso to S.60(1)(i) of the CPC. It was argued that since the attachment in execution of the same decree continued for a total period of 24 months it has the effect of discharge or satisfaction of the decree and no further steps in execution could be had. I do not think that the proviso has such an effect. That proviso merely inhibits the oppressive and tormenting process of subjecting the same judgment-debtor to the process of the law at the instance of identical decree holders without a respite if the attachment of salary continued for a period of 24 months whether continuously or intermittently. If the attachment of salary for a total period of 24 months continued in execution of the same decree, then it is not a question of respite, but a total exemption from attachment in execution of that decree. But that proviso is not having the effect of operating as an automatic discharge or satisfaction of the decree simply by reason of the attachment having been made for 24 months in execution of the same decree. If further amounts are due under the decree the decree-holder will definitely be entitled to have it realised by other available methods of execution provided there is no other bar. A different interpretation will have the disastrous effect which the legislature might never have intended. There may be cases in which the decree debt is a huge amount and what is realised by attachment of salary for 24 months is only a small fraction of it. If such an attachment is having the effect of the decree being fully satisfied or discharged it may be an injustice to the decree-holder. That must never have been the legislative intent. What is intended is only as a relief to the salaried class of judgment debtors to enable them to maintain themselves and their families in a suitable manner free from the harassment's of oppressive attachments in execution. The proviso is not aimed at taking away the rights of decree-holders to realise the entire amounts they could realise by other available methods of execution of the decree.

3. Next contention was that what is now sought to be realised by the garnishee proceedings is exactly what is prohibited under proviso (h) to S.60(1). Under that proviso what is exempted from attachment and sale is wages of labourers and domestic servants, whether payable in money or in kind. The amounts sought to be realised are arrears of remuneration and bonus due to the judgment debtor in the hands of employer who is the garnishee. Gopalan v. Angamali Chit Fund (P) Limited (1975 KLT 395) held that though bonus is not a regular part of wages, deferred or otherwise and in essence it is only an ex-gratia payment, by statute or agreement it can assume permanency and become part of wages. But what is exempted is only wages of labourers or domestic servants and hence wages or bonus become exempt from attachment only if the revision petitioner is a labourer. He has no case that he is a domestic servant. Under explanation.4 to S.60(1) proviso wages include bonus and labourer includes skilled, unskilled or semi-skilled labourer.

4. But these provisions may not in any way help the revision petitioner in as much as he had no case before the execution court that he is a labourer. Whether a person is a labourer or not should be ascertained as a question of fact. In order to become a labourer one should earn his bread by manual labour or occupation whether skilled or not. The mere fact that he suffered