Back
1997 Supreme(SC) 1552
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D. P. Wadhwa, Sujata .V. Manohar
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER, APPELLANTS
Versus
AMRIK SINGH, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. 5347 of 1996,
decided on November 27, 1997.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit seeking a declaration that the termination of employment was illegal was barred by limitation as it was filed after the prescribed period of three years under Article 113 of the Limitation Act.
Headnote:
Limitation - Employment Termination - The court held that the suit seeking a declaration that the termination of employment was illegal was barred by limitation as it was filed after the prescribed period of three years under Article 113 of the Limitation Act.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent's employment was terminated on 2-2-1980, and he filed a civil suit in 1986 seeking a declaration that the termination was illegal. The trial court held that the suit was not barred by limitation as the termination was null and void.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit seeking a declaration that the termination was illegal was barred by limitation as it was filed after six years, exceeding the prescribed period of three years under Article 113 of the Limitation Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit seeking a declaration that the termination of employment was illegal was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was clearly barred by limitation as it was filed after the prescribed period of three years under Article 113 of the Limitation Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the suit of the respondent was dismissed on the grounds of being barred by limitation.
ORDER
1. The respondent was employed as a clerk in the Government High School, Raipur, Rasulpur on 26-4-1976. He was subsequently posted as a clerk in the Government High School, Bharta Khurd, (Jalandhar). On 9-5-1979 he proceeded on leave. He did not rejoin on the due date. He submitted his applications for extension of leave from time to time. As the respondent did not join duty till 2-2-1980, his services were terminated by the appellants by an order dated 2-2-1980. In March 1980, the respondent wanted to resume duty when he was informed that his services were already terminated by an order dated 2-2-1980.
2. For six years thereafter the respondent did not take any action. On 8-11-1986 he filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the order of 2-2-1980 terminating his services was illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction. One of the issues which was raised Lit the trial was whether the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court held that because the order of termination was null and void, no period of limitation was attracted and the suit was, therefore, not barred by limitation. This view has been upheld by the first appellate court. The second appeal has been dismissed in limine.
3. We are not examining any other issues which were raised during the trial of the suit. The cause of action in the present case arose on the date of the order of termination of 2-2-1980. We will assume that the respondent became aware of or was informed about the order of termination only after one month in March 1980, and the period of limitation began from March 1980. Both sides are agreed that the Article of Limitation applicable is the residuary Article 113 which prescribes a period of three years. The suit which is filed after six years is clearly barred by limitation. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the suit of the respondent is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
