1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 18th of August, 1992 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.5/1988, by which the judgment and decree dated 30-11-1987 passed by the Trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.198/1987 came to be set aside.

2. The above Second Appeal raises the following substantial questions of law :-

(1) Whether the First Appellate Court committed the error in holding that the plaintiff-appellant failed to prove that the time consumed in the earlier proceeding is required to be excluded while computing the period of limitation ?

(2) Whether the First Appellate Court wrongly held that as per the provisions of the Limitation Act, the proceedings before the Labour Court, are not civil proceedings and hence, the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of the said provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that the time consumed in that Court cannot be excluded ?

3. The facts in a nutshell can be stated thus :-

That, the plaintiff was a permanent employee of the defendant-Municipal Council and was at the relevant time working as a Naka Mohrir on Octroi Naka on a monthly salary of Rs.141/-. The plaintiff was defailed for duty at a table where receipts for payment of octroi were to be issued. The plaintiff was issued a memo by the octroi Superintendent of the defendant calling upon the plaintiff to show cause in respect of certain allegations made against him. The plaintiff denied the allegations and contended that he was innocent. The defendant thereafter suspended the plaintiff from service from 02-9-1967 pending enquiry. A chargesheet was served on the plaintiff on 10-10-1967 and ultimately pursuant to the departmental enquiry held against the plaintiff a dismissal order came to be passed against the plaintiff under Section 79(3) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 and Section 186(2)(5) of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922.

4. The plaintiff upon service of the said dismissal order was issued a notice to the defendant-Municipal Council, calling upon it to withdraw the order of dismissal, failing which the plaintiff informed the defendant that he would be filing a suit. The plaintiff thereafter approached the Labour Court on 23-6-1968 against the said dismissal order.

However, the Labour Court by its order dated 27-3-1969 held that it has no jurisdiction. The plaintiff thereafter filed Special Civil Suit No.46/75. The said Special Civil Suit was dismissed resulting in the plaintiff filing a First Appeal in this Court. In this Court, the plaintiff sought liberty to withdraw the suit as well as Appeal which was granted and the plaintiff filed the instant suit thereafter. The dismissal order was inter alia challenged on various grounds amongst which was the jurisdiction of the authority concerned to pass the order of dismissal. The defendants filed their written statement and the principal contention of the defendants in the said written statement was that the suit was not maintainable on the application of principles of res judicata. The defendants contended that in view of the decision in Special Civil Suit No.49/75, the plaintiff was estopped from filing a fresh suit. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. In so far as the present Second Appeal is concerned, issue No.1 is relevant and is to the following effect

'Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?'

5. The trial Court had framed in as many as eighteen issues and all the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Suffice it to say that the Trial Court held that the dismissal order was illegal. The trial Court resultantly after so recording the findings, decreed the suit and directed defendant Nos.1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.28623/-against his loss of pay from 02-9-1967 till the date of filing of the suit.

6. Being aggrieved by the decreeing of the suit, the defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.5/88. The First Appellate Court framed the following issues :-

(1)Did the plaintiff