Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges

    S.P Krishna Rao v. Thimurshakhan And Another.

    The learned Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, relying upon the decision in Munuswami v. Viswanatka Nair 1957 2 M.L.J 400. allowed a petition under S. 60(b) of the Civil Procedure Code in execution of a decree for money by attaching the bonus of the respondent who is reported to be a mechanic. But Mr. Ramasubramaniam brought to my notice the latest judgment of Veeraswami, J., in Ganapathi Pillai v. Swaminatha Pillai C.R.P No. 1952 of 1965., who held that payment of bonus is a method of payment of payment of wages. He also observed :—

    “No doubt, payment of wages conditional upon payment of wages. But once bonus is paid, it has the true attribute of wages.”

    Here, he relied upon a decision of the Mysore High Court reported in P. Nathmal v. Dasarath A.I.R 1959 Mys, 96.. It has to be noted that this judgement was rendered after the passing of the Madras Payment of Bonus Act of 1965. There has been chamcleonic changes in the law of bonus having regard to the various economic and social strains to accord industrial peace in Our country. In this view, the learned Judge, with whom I repectfully agree, was of the opinion that bonus should form part of wage. The order of the Court below cannot stand.

    Mr. P.S Ramachandran, however, contended that the petitioner is a mechanic and therefore not a labourer within the meaning of S. 60 (1) proviso (h) of the Civil Procedure Code and the bonus paid to him cannot be deemed to be beyond the pale of attachment. But whether he is a mechanic or a labourer has not been gone into by the Court below, and this has to be ascertained as a question of fact Both the parties, therefore, agree that there is no material on which I can base my decision whether he is a mechanic or a labourer. It is advisable that this matter is remitted after setting aside the order of the Lower Court for a further consideration in the light of the observations made above. Accordingly, the order of the Lower Court is set aside and the matter remitted to the file of the District Munsif of Coimbatore for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of my judgment.

    No costs.

    v.c.s

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    S.P Krishna Rao v. Thimurshakhan And Another.
    (Mar 28, 1969)