The main legal point established in the judgment is that bonus paid to a labourer is not a part of wages unless it assumes permanence and periodicity. The judgment also emphasizes that bonus declared under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, is a part of wages within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code.

1. In execution of a decree obtained against the appellants in this case, the respondent Angamali Chit Fund Private Ltd., sought attachment of certain amounts due by way of bonus, to the appellants and the first judgment debtor who are the employees of the Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., Kalamassery. When the notice of interim attachment was received, the appellants and the first defendant in the case raised objections. After hearing the objections the interim attachment in respect of bonus due to the first judgment debtor was made absolute and the attachment of the amounts due to the judgment debtors 2 to 4 who are the appellants here was raised. The decree-holder thereupon filed A. S. No. 115 of 1973, before the Additional District Judge, Parur. The appeal was allowed and the order raising the attachment was vacated as against judgment debtors 2 to 4. The present Second Appeal is filed by judgment debtors 2 to 4 against the above order.

2. The contention raised in the appeal is that the bonus amounts due to the appellants are not liable to attachment in view of S.60 (1) (k) of the C.P.C. Under S.60 (1) (h) of the C.P.C. the wages of labourers and domestic servants, whether payable in money or in kind, are not liable to be attached. The respondent, on the other hand, would deny that the amount attached fell under the category of wages. There is also the case that the appellants are not labourers coming under the purview of S.60 (1) (h) of the C.P.C. On the first point, the argument is that bonus allowed to a labourer comes under the category of exgratia payment and cannot be considered to be part of the wages.

3. The question whether bonus paid to a labourer was part of wages came up for consideration in A. Muniswamy v. T. Viswanatha,1957 Madras 773. Ramaswami J, after an elaborate discussion of the meanings of the words 'wages' and 'bonus' in the different enactments came to the following conclusion:

"The sum and substance of the entire discussion is that bonus is not a regular part of the wages, deferred or otherwise and in essence is an ex-gratia payment. But by statute or by agreement it can assume permanency and become part of the wages. S.60 C. P. Code covers only a limited class of wage-earners, viz., labourers who earn their daily bread by personal manual labour, or in occupations which require little or no art, skill or previous education. If these conditions are fulfilled, bonus will stand protected under S.60 C. P. Code."

The identical question came up before the same court in another case reported in Ganapathia Pillai v. Swambinatha Pillai, 1969 Madras 440, Veeraswami J. (as he then was) referred the decision of the Mysore High Court in P. Nathmal v. Dhasarath, AIR. 1959 Mysore 96 and observed

"quite apart from that, I am of the view that bonus, having regard to recent developments in the law relating to labour relationship, would be included in wages. Payment of bonus is a method of payment of wages. No doubt, payment of bonus is conditional upon payment of wages. But once bonus is paid, it has the true attribute of wages".

The rulings in Ganapathia Pillai v. Swambinatha Pillai 1969 Madras 440 and P. Nathmal v. Dhasarath, AIR. 1959 Mysore 96 were followed in P. Krishna Rao v. Thimurshakhan,1970 Madras 135. The Andhra

High Court had also occasion to consider the question involved in I. Narasimha Rao v. A. Mahalakshmayya, 1970 (1) LLJ 697. After referring to the cases, A. Muniswamy v. T. Viswanatha, AIR. 1957 Madras 773, Badlu Prasad v. Tirjuji Sitaram 1965 (2) L.L.J. 666 and Muir Mills Company Ltd. v. Suti Mills Mazdoor Union 1955 (1) L.LJ.1 the Court deduced the following principles:

"(1) The Civil Procedure Code has not defined "wages". The word "wages" is used in a general sense or as genus of wages, without any qualification, including all payments made to an employee arising out of the relationship, but wages, has also a narrower or special meaning, connoting periodical payment. The phrase "wages of labour