Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 984 (DEL)

K. K. VAISOHA v. MYSORE KIRLOSKAR LTD.

2007-05-10

A.K.SIKRI, HIMA KOHLI

body2007
JUDGMENT CM Nos. 6247/2006 and 746/2006: A.K. Sikri, J. (Oral)-Necessary orders have already been passed in these applications. These applications are accordingly treated as disposed of. CM No. 14253/2005: Since the appellant has paid the Court fee, time is extended up to the date of filing of the Court fee. The application stands disposed of. CM No. 14252/2005: This is an application for condonation of delay in filing/re-filing the appeal. There is no opposition to this application. Since the respondents have failed to appear despite service, for the reasons stated in this application delay is condoned. The application is dispsed of. RFA No. 709/2005 Suit filed by the plaintiff challenging his termination from the service as wrongful and claiming damages has been dismissed by the learned trial Court on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Challenging the judgment rendered by the trial Court, present appeal is filed. All the three respondents were served by publication, but nobody has appeared on their behalf. Accordingly, the Registrar listed the matter before the Court for hearing today. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 3. Since the suit is dismissed as barred by limitation, necessary facts, which are required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding this issue only are taken note of. 4. The appellant was appointed by the respondent No.1 in the year 1985. On 4.2.1986 vide memo dated 1.2.1986 he was promoted as Vice President (Marketing). In 1989 he was promoted as Corporate Vice-President. However, vide letter dated 12.5.1991 his services were terminated by giving one months notice, i.e. with effect from 11.6.1991. The appellant filed suit for damages, declaration and consequential reliefs. Prayer made was that termination be declared illegal and as he had right to serve with the respondent No.1 till he attained the age of 60 years, he be granted compensation for the loss of employment. Other claims were also made. In this manner, total claim of Rs. 17,48,787.60 was preferred. Other ancillary reliefs were also sought. The respondents did not appear before the trial Court as well and were, therefore, proceeded against ex parte. Vide impugned judgment dated 3.2.2004 the suit is dismissed, which was filed on 2.7.1994. 5. The relevant dates for the purpose of limitation may be taken note of: 12. 5.1991 : Order of termination of the appellants services by giving one months notice. 11. Vide impugned judgment dated 3.2.2004 the suit is dismissed, which was filed on 2.7.1994. 5. The relevant dates for the purpose of limitation may be taken note of: 12. 5.1991 : Order of termination of the appellants services by giving one months notice. 11. 6.1991 : The date from which termination was to take effect. 29.5.1994 to 1. 7.1994 : High Court was closed for summer vacations. 2. 7.1994 : Suit was filed in the High Court, which was later transferred to the District Judge after enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction. 6. The learned trial Court has held that since services were terminated vide order dated 12.5.1991 suit should have been filed within three years from this date, i.e. 11.5.1994 and since suit was filed on 2.7.1994, it was barred by limitation. This approach is clearly contrary to law. The learned Addl. District Judge failed to take into consideration that though the termination letter is dated 12.5.1991, the termination, in fact, became effective only from 11.6.1991, as one months notice of termination was given. Thus, the appellant ceased to be the employee of the respondent No.1 because of the said termination, which the appellant perceived as illegal, only with effect from 11.6.1991 and, therefore, time for three years limitation period, which is to be computed for challenging this, has to be 11.6.1991. Once the limitation period is to be counted in this manner, the last date for filing the suit was 11.6.1994. Since the Courts were closed for summer vacations, the appellant could file the suit on the reopening day. The Court reopened on 2.7.1994 and the suit was filed on that day. This suit was; therefore, within limitation. The impugned judgment and decree is accordingly set aside. It is held that the suit filed is within limitation. The matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court. Since the respondents (defendant in the suit) were ex parte, the learned trial Court shall proceed to decide the case on merits. The appellant shall appear before the trial Court on 5.7.2007. Ordered accordingly.