( 95 )
Present: Drieberg J.
REDDIAR v. ABDUL LATEFF.'
171—C. R. Colombo, 36,231.
Labourer—Driver of motor lorry—Civil Procedure Code, s 21S (j).
The wages of the driver of a motor lorry is not exempt fromseizure under section 218 (j) of the Civil Procedure Code.
PPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests,Colombo.
H. H. Bartholomeusz, for appellant.
September 17, 1928. Dmeberg J.—
The defendant, against whom the plaintiff obtained a moneydecree for Rs. 136, is a lorry driver in the service of the appellant,the Manager of the Colombo Electric Tramways and LightingCompany, Limited.
The defendant is paid wages at a certain rate for each day orpart of a day for which he works, payment being made on Fridayfor the week ending on the previous Wednesday.
On Thursday, February 2, a notice under section 229 of the CivilProcedure Code was served on the appellant prohibiting him frompaying to the defendant “ his salary for the current week andsucceeding weeks in February, 1928.” The next day the appellant,despite this notice, paid the defendant Rs. 14, the wages then dueto him, and wrote to the Fiscal that he returned the notice ofFebruary 2 as the defendant was a daily paid servant of' theCompany.
Mr. Bartholomeusz was very anxious to make it clear that theappellant acted bona fide and with no desire to disregard an orderof Court; this is clearly so, for the plaintiff had before this issuedtwo similar notices to the appellant, who then acted in the sameway and sent the same reply to the Fiscal. The plaintiff’s Proctortook no exception to this, and the appellant could fairly havethought on this occasion that he was acting rightly.
The only question is whether the defendant is a “ labourer ” soas to render his wages exempt from seizure under section 218 (j)of the Civil Procedure Code. The Commissioner held that he wasnot, and directed the appellant to pay the sum of Rs. 14 into Court,The appellant appeals from this order.
( 96 )
1928. in Oirigoria v. The Locomotive Superintendent1 Wood Renton J.
TvTtr j held that a mechanic in the employ of the Government Railway
v was not a labourer within the meaning of this section. The judg-Abdul Lotiff ment does not state the exact nature of the work done by themechanic but it proceeded on the ruling in two cases, according towhich the defendant in this case cannot be regarded as a labourer.
In Riley v. Warden* the question was the meaning of the words“ workman or labourer ” as used in the Truck Act. ThereParke B. said :■—
“ It seems to me that this Act was intended to be applied tothose who do a work by their own personal labour, andthat the object of it is to protect such men as earn theirbread by the sweat of their brow and who are, for the most ,part, an unprovided class.”
In Jechand Khusal v. and Baika,® which was a decision ona provision of the Indian Civil Procedure Code similar to ours, itwas held that labourers were those who earn, their daily bread bypersonal manual labour, or in occupations which required little orno skill or previous education. A lorry driver, whose occupationneeds previous training, some degree of skill, and is not manualin the strict sense of the word, is not a labourer within the meaningof section 218 (j) of the Civil Procedure Code.
The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed. • 1
1 (1012) 16 X. L. 11. 117.- (1848) 2 Exch. Rep. 60. on p. 68.
(1880) 5 Borne. 132.
REDDIAR v. ABDUL LATIFF