Court rules deceased employee's gratuity attachable to satisfy money decree against heirs. Prior order not res judicata.

The court held that the gratuity payable to the deceased employee was attachable to satisfy a money decree against the heirs, as the employer was legally obligated to pay it to the heirs. The court distinguished a previous case where the employer was not bound to pay gratuity, making it non-attachable. The court ruled that the earlier order on attachability did not operate as res judicata, as the question of law regarding attachability after the employee's death was a jurisdictional issue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and each party was responsible for their own costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether gratuity payable to a deceased employee is liable to be attached against a decree for recovery of money passed against the heirs of the employee.
2. Whether the order holding that the gratuity was not attachable during the pendency of the suit operates as res judicata.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute regarding the attachment of gratuity payable to a deceased employee in satisfaction of a money decree against the heirs of the employee. The decree-holder sought attachment of the deceased employee's dues, including gratuity, from the employer. The lower courts had dismissed the application seeking refund of the attached gratuity. The key legal question was whether the gratuity, which was payable to the deceased employee, could be attached in execution of a decree. Section 60(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides protection to certain types of gratuities from attachment. The court analyzed whether the nature of the gratuity changed upon the death of the employee and if the employer was legally bound to pay it. The court distinguished a previous case where the employer was not legally bound to pay gratuity, making it non-attachable. In this case, the court held that the gratuity, being payable to the legal heirs of the deceased employee, was attachable as the employer was obligated to pay it to the heirs. The court relied on precedent to support its decision, concluding that the attached gratuity was not liable to be refunded to the appellants.

Issue 2:
The appellants argued that the earlier order stating that the gratuity was not attachable should operate as res judicata. The court examined the principle of res judicata in the context of a mixed question of law and fact. It held that a decision on a question of law, particularly regarding the jurisdiction of the court or the legality of an order, does not bind the parties under res judicata. In this case, the court determined that the question of law regarding the attachability of gratuity after the death of the employee was a jurisdictional issue, and any erroneous interpretation of the law did not amount to res judicata. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that a legal question of this nature did not establish grounds for res judicata and left the parties to bear their own costs.

In conclusion, the court ruled that the gratuity payable to the deceased employee was attachable, and the earlier order on attachability did not operate as res judicata due to the question being one of law and jurisdiction.

---