Civil Revision Petition filed challenging attachment of wage board arrears against a regular employee. Court held that petroleum trust employee not a labourer; attachment valid under CPC Section 60(1)(h). Petition dismissed.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs awarded to the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
C.R.P.No. 5818 of 2010
DATE: 25-04-2011
Between: Garikina Suri Babu Chenna Appa Rao and another
.. Petitioner And
.. Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
C.R.P.No. 5818 of 2010
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner against the order of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in E.P.No.70 of 2010 in O.S.No.233 of 2005 dated 18.08.2010 filed under Order XXI Rue 46 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short “CPC”) to attach the wage board arrears payable to the revision petitioner, who is the first judgment-debtor.
The contention before the lower Court was that the revision petitioner is a labourer and consequently under Section 60(1)(h) of CPC, the wages of the labourers and domestic servants is not attachable and, therefore, the attachment of the amount ordered by the lower Court is not legal. However, the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam is not accepted the same.
The point for consideration is whether the order of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam suffers from any infirmity?
POINT:
There is no dispute about the fact that if the petitioner is to be a labourer then the amount, which is to get, is exempt from attachment. But however, before the lower Court Exs.B-1 and B-2 statements were filed, which go to show that the petitioner is a regular employee of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. In fact, as can be seen from the Execution Petition copy under column No.6, an amount of Rs.42,680/- was already recovered from the salary of the revision petitioner in E.P.No.123 of 2007. The revision petitioner has not objected to such an attachment order. Therefore, when once the revision petitioner is a paid and permanent employee of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam, entitled to all benefits of regular service. The petitioner cannot claim him to be a labourer entitled for the exemptions under Section 60(1)(h) of CPC. Whatever arrears the petitioner has received towards arrears of wages consequent upon the settlement with the management is also a part of the salary and if any restrictions are to be there, it is only subject to the provisions of Section 60 of CPC with regard to the attachment of the salary of the employee. Therefore, the revision petitioner cannot say that he is a labourer and that the amount received by him is exempt from attachment.
Therefore, for the above reasons, the order of the lower Court does not call for any interference and accordingly the point is answered.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J
25-04-2011 MR
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
C.R.P.No. 5818 of 2010
DATE: 25-04-2011
MR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether arrears of wages payable to a regular employee of Visakhapatnam Port Trust are exempt from attachment under Section 60(1)(h) of the CPC.
Whether the petitioner qualifies as a labourer entitled to wage exemptions.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Garikina Suri Babu Chenna Appa Rao
Visakhapatnam Port Trust
N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
