The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) constituted under S.41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 is considered a 'court' within the meaning of S.14 of the Limitation Act, and the proceedings before him are civil proceedings, allowing for the exclusion of the entire period of those proceedings for computing the period of limitation for filing a suit.

1. The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in the State Bank of India (for short 'the respondent') in 1962. In July, 1977, he was promoted to the post of Branch Manager but on 8th of September, 1980, he was placed under suspension. On 31st of July, 1981, a chargesheet was issued to him which was followed by a regular departmental proceedings and ultimately on 11th of January, 1983, the appellant was removed from service. This order was challenged by the appellant in an appeal filed before the Local Board of the Bank on 21st of February, 1983 but by order dated 18th of May, 1983, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant, thereafter, filed an appeal under S.41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') on 21st of July, 1983. The appeal was filed with the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), Madras. This appeal was dismissed on 1st of September, 1987 on the ground that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 were not applicable to the nationalised Banks as held by the Madras High Court in Management of Bank of India v. C.V. Raman, (1984 (2) Lab.L.J. 34). This judgment was upheld by this Court on 21st of April, 1988 and is since reported in (1988) 3 SCC 105. It was because of this decision that the appellant's S.L.P.(C) No. 14963 of 1987 against the order of 1st of September, 1988 by which the appeal was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) was dismissed. It was at this stage that the appellant instituted regular suit No. 11099/88 in the City Civil Court, Madras for a declaration that the removal of the appellant was illegal, ultra vires and invalid. He prayed for a decree for reinstatement with consequential benefits. This suit was dismissed by the trial court by its judgment dated 20th of April, 1994. The trial court further held that the suit was not within limitation. The first appeal filed, thereafter, by the appellant was allowed on 7th of March, 1995 by the VIII Addl. Judge, Madras with the finding that the suit was not barred by limitation and that the order of dismissal passed against the appellant was bad. The respondent, thereafter, filed a second appeal which was allowed by the Madras High Court on 9th of August, 1996 with the finding that the suit was instituted in the Civil Court beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act. The High Court did not go into the merits of the case. It is in these circumstances that the present appeal has been filed.

2. The only question which falls for our consideration in this appeal is whether the suit instituted by the appellant in the City Civil Court, Madras on 28th of September, 1988 was within time. 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 Art.58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. There is another Article, namely, Art.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.

3. In order to bring a suit within the period of limitation, the appellant claimed benefit of S.14 of the Limitation Act on the ground that he had represented to the Local Board and, thereafter, filed an appeal under S.41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 and was, therefore, prosecuting civil proceedings in a court with due diligence. It is claimed that the entire period during which those proceedings were pending has to be excluded and if this is done, the suit will be well within limitation.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has, on the contrary, contended that the benefit of S.14 can be given only if the proceedings were "civil proceedings" and were pending in a Court. It is contended that the Appellate Authority under S.41(2) of the of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 is