2000 (5) TMI 1063 - SC - Indian Laws

Employee removal challenge and delayed declaratory suit-time excluded u/s 14, making suit within limitation; appeal allowed

The dominant issue was whether a declaratory suit challenging an employee's removal from service, filed more than three years after the removal order, was ... Removal of an employee from service - claimed benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act on the ground that he had represented to the Local Board and, thereafter, filed an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 and was, therefore, prosecuting 'civil proceedings' in a court with due diligence - Whether the suit instituted by the appellant in the City Civil Court, Madras on 28th of September, 1988 was within time - HELD THAT:- This suit was filed for the declaration that the order dated 11th of January, 1983, by which he was removed from service, was bad in law. The normal period of limitation within which the suit could have been filed is three years under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. There is another Article, namely, Article 113 which is a residuary Article which provides a period of limitation of three years for filing a suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere. In order to bring a suit within the period of limitation, the appellant claimed benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act on the ground that he had represented to the Local Board and, thereafter, filed an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 and was, therefore, prosecuting 'civil proceedings' in a court with due diligence. We are of the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), which was an Authority constituted under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 to hear and decide appeals, was a 'court' within the meaning of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and the proceedings pending before him were civil proceedings. It is not disputed that the appellant could file an appeal before the Local Board of the Bank, which was purely a departmental appeal. In this view of the matter, the entire period of time from the date of institution of the departmental appeal as also the period from the date of institution of the appeal under Section 41(2) before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) till it was dismissed will, therefore, have to be excluded for computing the period of limitation for filing the suit in question. If the entire period is excluded, the suit, it is not disputed, would be within time. It was for these reasons that we have allowed this appeal by our short order dated 28th of July, 1998 for which the reasons are recorded by us in detail. Issues involved: Determination of the period of limitation for filing a suit challenging the removal of an employee from service.Summary:The appellant, a former employee of the State Bank of India, was removed from service in 1983. He challenged this removal through various appeals and suits. The main issue was whether the suit filed in 1988 was within the period of limitation. The appellant claimed the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, arguing that the time spent in pursuing appeals under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act should be excluded from the limitation period. The respondent contended that the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) did not qualify as 'civil proceedings' and thus, the benefit of Section 14 should not apply.The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, specifically Section 41, which allows for appeals to be filed within a prescribed time frame. The rules governing the appeal process were also examined, highlighting the jurisdiction and powers of the Appellate Authority.Referring to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the Court emphasized that the term 'court' in this context does not necessarily mean a 'civil court' under the Code of Civil Procedure. Citing precedents, the Court established that any Tribunal or Authority deciding the rights of parties could be considered a 'court' for the purpose of Section 14.Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) constituted under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act was indeed a 'court' within the meaning of Section 14. Therefore, the time spent in the departmental and appellate proceedings should be excluded from the limitation period calculation. Consequently, the suit filed by the appellant was deemed to be within the prescribed time limit, and the appeal was allowed.This judgment clarified the interpretation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the context of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, ensuring that the period spent in such proceedings can be excluded from the limitation period for filing a suit.