The plaintiff's claim for future salary was not maintainable under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, and the plaintiff was only entitled to claim damages.

This revision has been directed against the order in E.A.4056 of 2007, a petition filed under Section 47 of CPC, in E.P.No.1951 of 2006 in O.S.No.10596 of 1987 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Ciiv Court, Chennai. The plaintiff has filed O.S.No.10596 of 1987 for arrears of salary amounting to Rs.82,700/- with 12% pa future interest and also for future salary at Rs.2,000/- pm along with allowances with interest at 12% pa from 24. 1987 till the date of relieving or reinstatement. The said suit was decreed exparte on 26.06.1992. To execute the decree the plaintiff, employee under the defendant, had filed E.P.No.1951 of 2006 in O.S.No.10596 of 1987. Only in the said EP, the revision petitioner had filed E.A.No.4056 of 2007 under Section 47 CPC. The Executing Court had dismissed the EA.NO.4056 of 2007 on the ground that the contention of the petitioner that the civil court has no jurisdiction cannot be sustainable.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that as per Section 41 and Sub-clause 3 to Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, the suit itself is not maintainable. As per section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, only a months notice is required to be sent by the employer before any employee is placed under suspension and even the said notice is not necessary if the employee is suspended on the charge of misconduct supported by the evidence. Relying Section 41(2) of the said Act the learned counsel would further contend that the employee has not preferred any appeal against the order of suspension of the employer and hence, the suit is not maintainable. As per section 2 sub-clause 3 of the said Act what is "commercial establishment" has been defined under the said Act as follows:-

"Commercial establishment” means an establishment which is not a shop but which carries on the business of advertising, commission, forwarding or commercial agency, or which is a clerical department of a factory or industrial undertaking or which is an insurance company, joint stock company, bank, brokers office or exchange and includes such other establishment as the State Government may by notification declare to be a commercial establishment for the purpose of this Act"

The learned counsel for the respondent herein would contend that the suit for recovery of money on the ground of arrears of salary is perfectly maintainable before the Civil Court. A perusal of the plaint in O.S.No.10596 of 1987 will go to show that the plaintiff has claimed his arrears of salary amounting to Rs.82,700/- from July 1984. According to the plaintiff, he has resigned from the job as per Ex.A.3 as on 24.07.1984 itself. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, once the respondent herein /employee had resigned his job on 27. 1984 itself then there is no question of suspension or termination of service arose for consideration. A reading of Ex.A.3 will go to show that even though the employee said to have resigned his post on 24.07.1984 itself, at the request of the employer he had continued his service till 03.09.1984.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that Ex.A.3 is dated 11. 1984 and at the worst the employee cannot claim any arrears of salary after 011. 1984, but in the paint under the relief No.3, the plaintiff/employee had asked for future salary at the rate of Rs.2,000/- pm with future interest at 12% pm from 24. 1987 till the date of relieving or reinstatement.

4. Relying on a ratio in 1956 MLJ 556 (Percy Edward Warne Vs. The Ouchterlony Valley Estate (1938) Ltd.,), the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the respondent / employee / plaintiff in O.S.No.10596 of 1987 is not entitled to claim any reinstatement and the relief No.3 to the plaint claiming future salary from 24. 1987 till the date of relieving or reinstatement is not maintainable under law and if at all the plaintiff / respondent is