IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY , THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1027 of 2010 Between: 1 Vadde Veeraiah, S/o Gopaiah, VK 7 Line, Singareni Colories Limited, R?o H.No. 5-2-43, Coolie Line Kothagudem Town & Mandalam. Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 G. Amrutha Reddy, S/o Bhadra Reddy R/o H.No. 5-2-62, Medara Basti, Kothagudem Town & Mandalam, Khammam District .. 2 The General Manager Singareni Collieries Limited, Kothagudem Area Ridrampuram, Kothagudem (M), Khammam District, .....RESPONDENT(S) ORDER: This revision has been filed against the order dated 22-12-2009 passed in E.P.No.543 of 2009 in O.S.No.75 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, Khammam district. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in E.P. The first respondent filed a suit against the petitioner in O.S.No.75 of 2005 and obtained decree on 16-07-2008 for recovery of Rs.2,39,300/-. As contending that the petitioner/ judgment debtor has been working as Coal Cutter in VK No.7 Incline, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem, and that arrears of wages under NCWA-VIII Wage Board, payable to the petitioner are lying with the garnishee i.e., the General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem, and that the petitioner may receive that sum and in that situation the first respondent may not recover the decretal amount from the petitioner and therefore, the amount lying with the garnishee may be attached and a warrant may be issued to attach the amount of Rs.3,19,831/- he filed the E.P under Order XXI Rule 46-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The lower Court passed orders of attachment and notice. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the first respondent. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the E.P. schedule amount i.e., NCWA-VIII Wage Board arrears payable to the petitioner are not attachable and this Court in the case of Guguloth Babu and others v. M/s.Suraksha Chit Funds and another[1] considering the provisions of Section 60 (h) explanation IV of the Code of Civil Procedure, observed that the wages of the labourers and domestic servants whether payable in money or in kind come under non-attachable items under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was further held that the wages of the labourers paid under National Coal Wage Agreement-VIII Wage Board (NCWA) are also non- attachable in execution of a decree. 6. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J March 17, 2011 Pn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1027 of 2010 March 17, 2011 [1] 2010 (6) ALD 489