9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Attachment of bonus amounts under Section 60(1)(h) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and determination of whether bonus constitutes wages exempt from attachment.
Analysis: 1. The case involves the attachment of bonus amounts due to the appellants by a decree holder. The appellant contended that the bonus amounts are not liable to attachment under Section 60(1)(h) of the CPC, which exempts wages of laborers from attachment. The court had to determine whether the bonus amounts qualified as wages under the law to be exempt from attachment. 2. The appellant argued that bonus payments are ex gratia and not part of regular wages, thus not subject to attachment. The court referred to precedents like A. Muniswamy v. T. Viswanatha and Ganapathia Pillai v. Swaminatha Pillai to establish that bonus could be considered part of wages under certain circumstances, especially if it is a method of payment conditional upon wages. 3. The court highlighted that the Payment of Bonus Act excludes bonus from the definition of wages for the Act's specific purposes but noted that bonus could still be considered wages under other laws, such as the Payment of Wages Act. The definition of wages in the Payment of Wages Act includes bonus as part of remuneration under certain conditions, indicating that bonus could be classified as wages. 4. Referring to the Supreme Court's interpretation in Purshottam v. V. B. Potdar, the court emphasized that bonus payments under awards or settlements could be deemed wages. The court noted that bonus, being an implied term of employment post the Payment of Bonus Act, could be considered remuneration and thus part of wages. 5. However, the court pointed out that the exemption from attachment under Section 60(1)(h) of the CPC applies only to laborers and domestic servants' wages. Therefore, to determine if the bonus amounts were exempt from attachment, it was crucial to establish whether the appellants qualified as laborers under the law, considering the nature of their work and skills required. 6. Consequently, the court set aside the lower appellate court's order and remanded the case to the executing court for fresh disposal. The parties were granted an opportunity to prove whether the appellants were laborers falling under Section 60(1)(h) of the CPC. The judgment allowed the appeal and directed each party to bear their respective costs.
|
