Advocates:
A.S.Sohal, Atul Nanda, Francis Victor, G.K.BANSAL, N.A.SIDDIQUI, S.K.MEHTA, Subhash C.Jindal

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The primary issue concerns the limitation period applicable to a suit filed by an employee challenging the validity of their dismissal. The courts have debated whether such suits are governed by the general limitation provisions or are exempt due to their nature.

2. The courts have consistently held that if an employee's dismissal is illegal, unconstitutional, or against the principles of natural justice, the employee can approach the court at any time to seek a declaration that they continue to be in service. This implies that there is no prescribed limitation period for such declarations (!) .

3. Despite these rulings, it is important to recognize that the Limitation Act generally prescribes a time limit for filing suits, and the residuary article (Article 113) provides a three-year limitation period for suits where no specific period is prescribed. This period begins when the right to sue accrues, which is typically when the cause of action arises or when the infringing act occurs (!) (!) .

4. The right to challenge an order of dismissal is considered to accrue at the point when the employee is precluded from attending work and is deprived of salary, effectively when the order is executed or enforced (!) .

5. Even if an order of dismissal is void or ultra vires, it may still have de facto legal effects unless and until it is declared null or void by a competent court or authority. Such an order continues to have legal consequences unless challenged within the prescribed limitation period (!) (!) .

6. The party seeking a declaration that an order of dismissal is void must approach the court within the limitation period; otherwise, the court may refuse relief based on the expiry of the limitation period (!) .

7. The decision emphasizes that a suit for declaration of invalidity of an order of dismissal is governed by the general limitation provisions, specifically Article 113, which prescribes a three-year limitation period from the date the right to sue arises (!) (!) .

8. The courts have clarified that the earlier view that such suits are not governed by limitation is incorrect. Instead, the correct legal position is that the suit must be filed within the limitation period applicable to suits for declarations, i.e., three years from the date the cause of action accrues (!) (!) .

9. In conclusion, the courts have allowed the appeals, set aside the previous judgments, and dismissed the suits, reaffirming that suits challenging the validity of dismissal orders are subject to the limitation period prescribed by law (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this document.