Judgment :- 1. This petition has been referred to a Division Bench by Raman Nayar, J., on the ground that the matter involved is one of considerable general importance and that is how it has come up before us. 2. The plaintiff-decree-holder in S.C.S. 231 of 1958 on the file of the Munsiff 's Court, Parur is the Revision Petitioner. He had instituted a suit for amounts due by the defendant on some chitty transaction and had also applied for attachment before judgment of certain amounts due to the defendant by way of bonus from the F.A.C.T. Company, where the defendant was an employee. The defendant opposed the application on the ground that the amount is not liable to be attached. The learned District Munsiff dismissed the petition on the ground that the bonus paid by the company to its labourers forms part of their wages and is not liable to be attached tinder S.60 (h) C.P.C. and also held that the defendant who is a junior operator must be deemed to be a labourer within the meaning of the section. 3. Two points were raised in this petition: (1) Whether the defendant was a skilled operator or a manual labourer; and (2) Whether the bonus given to an employee would come within the expression'wages'. Our learned brother Raman Nayar, J., called for affidavits and other documents from the parties to show the precise nature of the duties of the defendant, the qualification required for his job as also the exact character of the bonus and the basis on which bonus is paid. 4. The revision petitioner has filed an affidavit and produced certain documents. In para 3 of the affidavit the qualification of the junior operator is mentioned and in para 4 of the affidavit his duties are enumerated. These facts are not disputed. The question is whether on these facts it could be said that the defendant would be exempted under S.60 (h) C. P. C. Clause (h) of S.60 says that the wages of labourers and domestic servants whether payable in money or kind is exempt from attachment. What we have to decide is whether the defendant-judgment-debtor could be considered to be a 'labourer' within the meaning of the section. The earliest case where the import of the word 'labourer' was considered is in Jechand v. Aba, (1881) 5 Bombay 132. What we have to decide is whether the defendant-judgment-debtor could be considered to be a 'labourer' within the meaning of the section. The earliest case where the import of the word 'labourer' was considered is in Jechand v. Aba, (1881) 5 Bombay 132. There a labourer was considered to be a person who earns his daily bread by personal manual labour or in occupations which require little or no art, skill or previous education. There the court was dealing with a person who had agreed to spin cotton in a spinning and weaving company. This case was followed in K. U. Kulkarni Receiver v. Ganpath Hiraji Teli, Applicant, (A.I.R.1942 Bombay 191) where after discussion of some of the English cases it was held that the labourer within the meaning of S.60 (h) is one who does or is expected to do that class of work which requires manual labour. In Manilal Bhaichand v. Mohanlal Maganlal, (A.I.R.1946 Bom.102) the question was whether the salary of a clerk in a mill was exempt from attachment and it was held "A clerk in one of the departments of a mill doing no manual labour cannot be regarded as a labourer". The same view has been taken by Ramaswami, J. in A Muniswami v. T. Viswanatha Nair, (A.I.R.1957 Madras 773). We are in respectful agreement with the above view. 5. The defendant in this case is a junior operator in a Boiler House. Boilers Act V of 1923 prescribes that junior operator in Boiler Houses requires technical qualification and skill. The minimum qualification prescribed by the management also requires that junior operators should possess 3 years experience in the boiler plant ... A perusal of the duties enumerated in the affidavit would also show that his is not manual labour as we understand the terms, but he has to perform duties which require previous training, experience and skill. It cannot therefore be held that the defendant in this case would come within the meaning of "Labourer" in S.60 (1)(h) & the amount would be liable to attachment as it is only the wages of the 'labourer' that is exempted. 6. In view of this, it is unnecessary to decide the further question whether bonus payable to the defendant would come within the meaning of 'wages'. It therefore follows that the order of the learned District Munsiff is unsustainable and is hereby set aside. 6. In view of this, it is unnecessary to decide the further question whether bonus payable to the defendant would come within the meaning of 'wages'. It therefore follows that the order of the learned District Munsiff is unsustainable and is hereby set aside. The Revision Petition is allowed, but there will be no order as to costs. Allowed.