JUDGMENT:- The defendant in O. S. No. 249 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Erode is the appellant herein. The facts are not in controversy at all. The respondent herein was employed as a clerk in the ap-pellant-society from 1951 and his appointment was made permanent in l952. On 23rd January, 1957, he was served with a notice dated 7th January, 1957 terminating his service with effect from 12th December, 1956. Thereupon he instituted a suit against the appellant herein in O. S. No. 284 of 1957 on the file of the Court of the District Munsi of Erode for a declaration that his dismissal by the appellant-society was illegal, for a mandatory injunction directing the appellant-society to reinstate him in the old post as a clerk, for arrears of pay up to the date of suit with interest thereon and for future salary from the date of suit till reinstatement of the respondent and for other incidental reliefs. The trial Court passed a decree declaring that the dismissal of the respondent by the appellant was wrongful and directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent in his original job, giving liberty to the appellant to call for fresh explanation from the respondent and to hold an enquiry and directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 134.84 being the arrears of pay from 12th December, 1956 to 1st January, 1957. The respondent preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 146 of l962 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Erode against that portion of the decree of the trial Court which refused to give him the relief of arrears of salary and against the direction given to the appellant for initiating proceedings once again. The appellant also preferred an appeal, A.S. No. 133 of 1961 on the file of the same Court. Both the appeals were tried together and a common judgment was pronounced on 24th November, 1962. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent in part holding that the respondent was entitled to arrears of salary and setting aside that portion of the decree which directed a fresh enquiry. A second appeal, S.A. No. 177 of 1963, on the file of this Court was preferred by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge and that second appeal was allowed in part by this Court in 2nd January, 1967, a certified copy of the judgment therein having been marked as Exhibit A-3 in these proceedings. This Court, while upholding the finding of the Courts below that the dismissal was illegal, held that the respondent would have to file a separate suit for the salary due to him after the date of the plaint in the earlier suit, namely, O.S. No. 248 of 1957. This Court observed:

“The result of holding that the dismissal of the plaintiff is invalid in law would be that he should be deemed to be in service all through and the result would also be that month after month, he would be entitled to his salary. If the salary is not paid as and when due, under Article 7 of the first Division of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, he would have a period of three years within which he could file a suit for arrears of the salary. A suit for a declaration that the dismissal of the plaintiff is invalid in law and for arrears of salary till the date of suit cannot be converted into a suit enabling him to recover arrears of salary due to him without any limit of time till he is restored to his old post.”

It is thereafter the present suit was instituted by the respondent herein claiming salary for a period of 119 months at the rate of Rs. 110 per mensem, that is, for the period 1st April, 1957 to the end of February, 1967. The suit was resisted by the appellant herein. With regard to the period of limitation, by an amendment to the plaint, the respondent claimed that he was entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act. The appellant had filed two additional written statements, one of which related to this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document