The suit for recovery of back wages must be properly framed, valued, and the correct court fee paid to be maintainable under the law.

This second appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.1999 passed in A.S. No.149 of 1997 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 12.12.1995 passed in O.S. 502 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Valliyoor, in decreeing the suit.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

3. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

4. Broadly but briefly, precisely but narratively, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:

On 03.07.1986 she was appointed as permanent santitory worker in the Valliyoor Town Panchayat, the defendant herein. Subsequently, on 03.11.1986 she was terminated from service without adhering to the procedures. Thereupon she filed O.S.No.1156 of 1988 in the District Munsif Court, Valliyoor and got order of reinstatement. Thereupon appeal was filed in A.S.No.112 of 1991 in the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, which Court confirmed the Judgment and Decree and thereupon she was reinstated in Service with effect from 19.02.1992 as per order dated 14.02.1992. However, no back wages were paid to her. Thereupon she filed the suit O.S.No.502 of 1993 in the District Munsif Court, Valliyoor for declaration that she was entitled to get salary from September, 1986.

5. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During trial, on the side plaintiff, without oral evidence, Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked and on the side of the defendant D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit.

6. Challenging the said Judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant preferred appeal in A.S.No.149 of 1997, which was dismissed, by confirming the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, the present second appeal has been filed on the grounds inter alia thus:

The Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In the earlier the suit O.S.No.1156 of 1988 the same plaintiff has not claimed back wages, even though it happened to be a consequential relief. Hence, the subsequent suit claiming wages would not arise. Both the Courts below have failed to note that she worked till 06.11.1986, despite the fact proved that she was terminated from service. No appropriate Court Fee was paid for claim. Accordingly, the defendant prays for setting aside the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below.

8. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, my learned Predecessor framed the following question of law:

(1) Whether the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to decide the matter in dispute since the dispute is a labour dispute and hence the suit is not maintainable in law?

At the time of argument I found some more substantial questions of law could be framed as per proviso 100 of C.P.C. as under:

Additional Substantial Questions of Law:

(1) Whether both the Courts below are erroneous in not applying the law relating to

(a) Court fee.

(b) Framing of Suit.

(c) the embargo as embodied in Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C.

(ii) Whether the findings of both the Courts below are perverse?

Substantial Question of Law No:(1) and Additional Substantial Questions of Law Nos.(1) and (2):

9. All these points are taken together for discussion as they are interlinked and interconnected ith one another.

10. At the outset I would like to point out that both the Courts below simply turned their attention away from the relevant provisions of the Court Fees Act. Following the Suit in O.S.No.1156 of 1988, the present suit O.S.No.502 of 1993 was filed for recovery of back wages. The Back wages are quantifiable as such an ad-valorum Court fee ought to have been paid. But without resorting to such a measure, the suit was filed simply for declaration, which cannot be countenanced as per law. I would like to cite here S