Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Service Dispute — Time Spent in Labour Court Proceedings Can Be Excluded Under Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963. Proceedings before Labour Court are civil proceedings for the purpose of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Second Appeal against judgment of First Appellate Court setting aside decree of Trial Court in a suit for declaration that dismissal order was void and for reinstatement with back wages.

Appellant sought restoration of Trial Court decree declaring dismissal void and granting reinstatement with back wages.

Appellant was dismissed from service and his application before Labour Court was dismissed; he filed civil suit which was decreed by Trial Court but set aside by First Appellate Court on limitation grounds.

Trial Court decreed suit in favor of appellant; First Appellate Court set aside decree holding suit barred by limitation.

Whether the First Appellate Court erred in holding that the appellant failed to prove that time consumed in earlier proceedings (Labour Court) should be excluded under Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963. Whether the First Appellate Court wrongly held that proceedings before Labour Court are not civil proceedings for the purpose of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963.

Appellant argued that time spent in Labour Court proceedings should be excluded under Section 14 of Limitation Act as he prosecuted those proceedings in good faith and with due diligence. Respondents argued that Labour Court proceedings are not civil proceedings and hence Section 14 does not apply.

Proceedings before the Labour Court are civil proceedings in nature, and the time spent in such proceedings can be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 if the conditions of good faith and due diligence are satisfied. The appellant having prosecuted the Labour Court proceedings in good faith and with due diligence, and the Labour Court lacking jurisdiction to grant the declaration sought, the time from 23-6-1968 to 30-4-1987 was required to be excluded, making the civil suit filed on 30-4-1987 within limitation.

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 ? 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/-.

Appellant was dismissed from service in 1967. He filed an application before Labour Court on 23-6-1968, which was dismissed on 30-4-1987. He then filed Special Civil Suit No.198/1987 on 30-4-1987 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola. The suit was decreed on 30-11-1987. Respondents appealed to District Court, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No.5/1988, which was allowed on 18-8-1992, setting aside the Trial Court decree. Appellant filed Second Appeal No.40/1993 in the High Court, which was allowed on 18-2-2011.

• Limitation Act, 1963: Section 14
• Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965: Section 79(3)
• C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922: Section 186(2)(5)