JUDGMENT 1. - Since both the appeals are arising out of common orders passed by the courts below, on the request of counsel for the parties, both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Services of the plaintiff respondent (the concerned workman) were terminated vide order dated 23.1.1983. Though it has alleged by the concerned workman that a departmental appeal has been filed by him and the same was dismissed by the appellate authority on 15.1.1986, a suit for declaration was filed by the concerned workman before the trial court only on 12.12.1988. Considering the evidence and material on record, the suit was decreed by the trial court vide order dated 6.7.1991. While setting aside the order of termination been illegal, null & void and in violation of the principles of natural justice, the concerned workman was held entitled for reinstatement. However, wages were allowed only from the date of filing of suit i.e. 12.12.1998. 3. Aggrieved by the above judgement and-decree dated 6.7.1991 passed by the trial court, separate appeals were filed by the appellant corporation as well as the concerned workman. The first appellate court dismissed both the appeals by the common order dated 1.7.1996. hence the present appeal filed by the appellant corporation challenging the orders passed by the courts below. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there has been a specific denial in the written statement as filed on behalf of the appellant corporation that neither any departmental appeal was filed by the concerned workman nor any order as such was passed by the appellate authority as alleged by the concerned workman. In spite of specific denial by the appellant corporation in this regard and no appellate order been filed by the concerned workman, the trial court as well as the first appellate court seriously erred in not deciding the issue of limitation in accordance with law and both the orders passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside only on this ground. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record and also the orders passed by the courts below. 6. The termination order was passed on 23.1.1983. The suit was filed on 12.12.1988. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record and also the orders passed by the courts below. 6. The termination order was passed on 23.1.1983. The suit was filed on 12.12.1988. There is nothing on record to prove that any departmental appeal was filed against the order of termination and further any order was passed by the appellate authority thereon. Even the trial court, in a mechanical manner, in the operative portion, held that the appellate order if any is also set aside. In my opinion, the suit itself was filed after a considerable long delay, more so, beyond limitation and the suit itself should have been dismissed only on the ground of limitation. Both the appeals filed by the appellant corporation are liable to be allowed on this ground. 7. After passing of the judgment and decree by the first appellate court, the concerned workman had already been reinstated in service on 14.11.1996 and is continuing in employment of the appellant corporation since then. After having given my anxious consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, since the suit itself was filed beyond limitation and was not maintainable, the orders passed by the courts below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. However, since the concerned workman was already been reinstated in service on 14.11.1996 and continuing as such since then for last six yeas. I deem it proper to direct the appellant corporation to continue the concerned workman in service. The concerned workman, however, shall be treated as in service w.e.f. 14.11.1996 only. The concerned workman shall not be entitled for any back wages or benefit of past services prior to the above date. The appellant corporation shall further be at liberty to terminate the services of the concerned workman in accordance with law, if the same are not required.The appeals are disposed of accordingly.Appeals Disposed of as Above. *******