ORDER 1. The question involved in this revision is as to whether the remuneration received by the revision petitioners will come under the exemption from attachment mentioned in S.60(1)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The decree is for money and the decree holder filed an execution petition and applied for attachment of the salary of judgment debtors 2 to 4 who are the revision petitioners. The judgment debtors objected stating that they are labourers coming within the ambit of S.60(1)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore their salary is not attachable. 3. In support of the rival contentions, the decree holder filed Exts. A1 to A4 and the judgment debtors filed Exts.B1 to B5, in order to decide the question mentioned above. On an analysis of the entire evidence, the execution court came to the conclusion that judgment debtors 2 to 4 are not labourers coming within S.60(1)(h) and accordingly held that certain portions of the amount of salary received by them are liable to be attached. Judgment debtors 2 to 4 have come up in revision 4. It was contended by counsel for the revision petitioners that the revision petitioners are employed in Madura Coals, Threads, Koratty and that they are paid wages at daily rate for the actual days of work rendered by them. It was contended by him that though the emoluments are paid monthly they are daily-rated workers. He further contended that in view of Explanation IV added to S.60 by the 1976 Amendment even skilled or semi-skilled labourer will come within the purview of the term 'labourer' mentioned in the Section. Accordingly he contended that even though they are doing skilled work in the factory, they are still labourers and the remuneration which they receive is wages and not salary coming under S.60(1)(i) C.P.C. 5. The document produced by the decree holder in support of his case, namely Exts. A1 to A4, show that their remuneration is paid on a monthly basis and that they are employed as workers in the factory. The pay slip in respect of one of the revision petitioners was filed by them before this Court which shows that they are having basic pay and Dearness Allowance. Though, no doubt, it shows the number of days worked as 20, salary is paid on a monthly basis. The pay slip in respect of one of the revision petitioners was filed by them before this Court which shows that they are having basic pay and Dearness Allowance. Though, no doubt, it shows the number of days worked as 20, salary is paid on a monthly basis. They are members of the Provident Fund and they have even been paid the Travelling Allowance and the House Rent Allowance. These items are incompatible with wages of a labourer. From the available evidence it is clear that it is not as if that they are labourers earning wages. They are employed in a factory and practically their employment is permanent. From the manner in which they are employed and their wages are paid, I am not in a position to agree with counsel for the petitioners that they are labourers earning wages coming under S.60(1)(h). Explanation IV added to S.60 also cannot help, for, according to me, they are not labourers as contemplated and intended to be covered by S.60(1)(h) of the Code of the Civil Procedure. 6. Counsel for the decree holder relied on a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Gita Mitra v. Hemanta Kumar Mitra (AIR 1982 Calcutta 336) for the position that even a labourer coming under S.60(1)(h) is not entitled to immunity from attachment of the entire wages earned by him, but only to the extent as mentioned in S.60(1)(i) in relation to the salary of a person. After considering the various provisions, the Calcutta High Court held as follows:- "11. It follows therefore, that in analogous statutes dealing with workman which is synonymous with a labourer, and their wages the statute has invariably fixed a limit. That being the position we feel that in construing the extent of exemption of the wages of a labourer under S.60 of the Code a reference to the amount of wages becomes almost imperative as we have already indicated that it could never have been the intention of the legislature that the wages irrespective of its amount shall be exempt, when, the legislature did not consider it necessary to exempt salary beyond the first 400 Rupees of any other class of employees. Workman as defined in the several other statutes providing for adequate provision for their welfare and protection did not include persons drawing more than Rs.500 a month at the most. Workman as defined in the several other statutes providing for adequate provision for their welfare and protection did not include persons drawing more than Rs.500 a month at the most. Therefore, it seems to us that Clause.(h) and (i) read together in the light of similar statutes dealing with the welfare of labourers and workmen postulate only such labourers whose wages do not exceed Rs.400 to 500 per month." I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court that even under S.60(1)(h) there cannot be a complete immunity, but it can only be to the extent mentioned in Clause(i), for otherwise it may lead to a very anomalous situation. It is well known that in these days even the wages earned by labourers per month will be much more than Rs.400/- and the legislature can never have intended that whatever be the income of a labourer, it shall not be attached, but if the salary of a person is just above Rs.400/- a portion of his salary is liable to be attached. That can never be the in tendon of the legislature while enacting clauses (h) and (i) of S.60(1) C.P.C. In that view of the matter also I agree with the execution court that a portion of the salary of the revision petitioners is liable to be attached. 7. In view of what is stated above, I do not find any merit in the C.R.P. and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.