JUDGMENT : The plaintiff in a suit for settlement of accounts filed as O.S.No.197 of 2002 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam is challenging the judgment and decree, allowing the plaint claim in part, against the defendants/respondents in this appeal. 2. Facts relevant, in brief are as follows: The 1st defendant is a company presently known as M/s. Peninsular Softwares Ltd. The 2nd defendant is the Managing Director and the 3rd defendant is the Director of the company. The plaintiff was appointed as the Vice President (Operations) of the company as per an appointment order dated 1.1.1996. He joined the company on 8.1.1996. His monthly salary was fixed as Rs.9850/-. Though he had to retire on superannuation on 27.4.1997 his period was extended as per Clause 12 of Ext.A1 appointment order and thereafter the company as per the resolution dated 23.11.1998 extended his service and authorised him to visit Dubai for setting up a unit of the company. He was sent to Dubai along with one Ajaykumar on 31.12.1998 and he remained there till 1.3.1999. But arrangements for food and accommodation were not made by the company as promised and so he had to return from Dubai. He continued in service till 7.4.1999. As salary and tour expenses, he was entitled to get Rs.2,19,214.65/- but the same was not paid in spite of notice dated 21.3.1999 and 1.4.1999. Hence the suit. 3. The defendants/respondents resisted the suit on various grounds but admitted that the plaintiff was employed in the company and when attained the age of superannuation, he retired from the company. But taking into consideration of his experience when a new project was proposed to be set up at Dubai, the Board of Directors decided to send him with one Mr. Ajaykumar to Dubai. But, the plaintiff after reaching there tried to set up a company in his individual capacity and so the defendants were compelled to get his visa cancelled. The company was not liable to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiff/appellant. 4. Before the court below the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A16 were also marked for the plaintiff. DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.B1 to B7 were marked on the side of the defendants. After evaluating the entire evidence, the court below though the claim was for Rs.2,19,214.65/- decreed the suit only for Rs.11,257/-. The said judgment and decree are under challenge. DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.B1 to B7 were marked on the side of the defendants. After evaluating the entire evidence, the court below though the claim was for Rs.2,19,214.65/- decreed the suit only for Rs.11,257/-. The said judgment and decree are under challenge. 5. Heard Sri M.P. Madhavankutty, the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Sri Alias M. Cherian, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/defendants 1 to 3. 6. Admittedly, as per Ext.A1 the plaintiff was appointed as the Vice President (Operations) in the first defendant company on 1st January 1996. He joined the company pursuant to the appointment order on 8.1.1996. Ext.A1 contains the terms and conditions of his appointment. Clause 12 of Ext.A1 is reiterated for the sake of convenience. “You will be superannuated at the age of 60 (sixty) and the service can be extended for further at the discretion of the management.” 7. According to the plaintifff, after superannuation on 27.4.1997 he was allowed to continue and he was sent to Dubai along with one M.A. Ajaykumar as representatives of the company to set up a unit at Dubai and thus he went to Dubai on 31.12.1988 as he was in service and returned on 1.3.1999. Thereafter, he offered his resignation on 8.3.1999 and resigned on 7.4.1999. Therefore, his case is that he continued in service till 7.4.1999. The amount claimed is the salary and tour expenses due to him as on 7.4.1999 for a sum of Rs.2,19,214.65. A statement has also been attached along with the plaint showing the exact amount due to him as salary. At the outset it is to be noted that the defendants have admitted the employer employee relationship only upto superannuation on 27.4.1997 and disputed the claim raised by him that he was allowed to continue pursuant to clause 12 of Ext.A1. However, they admitted that he was sent to Dubai taking into consideration of his previous experience to set up a unit of the company. But instead of that he tried to set up an independent company and hence, his visa was cancelled was case put up by the defendants. However, they admitted that he was sent to Dubai taking into consideration of his previous experience to set up a unit of the company. But instead of that he tried to set up an independent company and hence, his visa was cancelled was case put up by the defendants. But it is significant to note that the court below after evaluating the evidence on record concluded that the employer employee relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant came to an end only after his return from Dubai i.e.; in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial court has also found that the first defendant company was not properly maintaining the records and so could not produce the documents required to disprove the case of the plaintiff and that there was no regular payment of salary even during the admitted period of his tenure. The claim was Rs. 2,13,478.50 as arrears of salary and Rs.5,736.15 as tour expenses. It was also found that though the suit was presented as one for settlement of accounts, it was for realization of money and hence maintainable. On the basis of all those facts, it was found that the plaintiff's case is more probable. However, the plaint claim was declined on the finding that it was barred by limitation except the salary arrears of March 1999 and 7 days in April 1999 and hence, only an amount of Rs.11,257/- was granted as the salary arrears of March 1999 and 7 days in April 1999. It is pertinent to note that the defendants have not challenged the judgment and decree. But the plaintiff has come up with this appeal aggrieved by decreeing his suit in part, that is by disallowing a major portion of his claim on the ground of limitation. So the only question mooted for consideration is whether the finding of the learned trial Judge that the plaint claim except for the month of March and 7 days in April 1999 was barred by limitation as the suit was filed only on 1.4.2002. 8. The main claim is for arrears of salary. “Salary” as per Black's Law Dictionary is an agreed compensation for services-esp. professional or semi professional services paid at regular intervals on a yearly basis as distinguished from an hourly basis. “Wage” as per Black's Law Dictionary means payment for labour or services. 8. The main claim is for arrears of salary. “Salary” as per Black's Law Dictionary is an agreed compensation for services-esp. professional or semi professional services paid at regular intervals on a yearly basis as distinguished from an hourly basis. “Wage” as per Black's Law Dictionary means payment for labour or services. Wages include every form of remuneration payable for a given period to an individual for personal services including salaries, commissions, vacation pay, bonuses, and reasonable value of board, lodging, payments in kind, tips and any similar advantage received from the employer. 9. Both salary and wages are emoluments paid to an employee by way of recompense for his labour. So salary has the same meaning as of wages. Accrued salary is the salary that has been earned but not yet paid. Explanation II of S.60(1) C.P.C provides salary as follows: “Explanation II- In clauses (i) and (ia) “salary” means the total monthly emoluments, excluding any allowance declared exempt from attachment under the provisions of clause (l), derived by a person from his employment whether on duty or on leave.” 10. In Punjab Province v Tara Chand (AIR 1947 Federal Court 23) it was observed by the Federal Court that the term 'wages' in Article 102 includes pay or salary. Therefore, the period of limitation for a suit to recover arrears of pay is governed by Article 102 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. 11. Article 7 of the Limitation Act, 1963 corresponds to Article 102 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. Article 7 of Limitation Act, 1963 is extracted thus: “7. For wages in the case of any other person Three years When the wages accrue due” 12. The Apex Court in Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe v State of Mysore (1962 KHC 415) while dealing with the question of limitation in a claim raised for arrears of salary and dearness allowance observed that on the question of limitation the suit would be governed by Article 102 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as laid down by the Federal Court in the case of Punjab Province v. Tarachand (1947 FCR 89.) It was further observed as follows: “The sole ground on which this contention was based was that “salary” was not included within the term “wages”. In our opinion, no good reasons have been adduced before us for not following the aforesaid decision of the Federal Court. 13. In our opinion, no good reasons have been adduced before us for not following the aforesaid decision of the Federal Court. 13. In Sahajanandhan v. Manager, S.N. College [1998 KHC 228], a Division Bench of this Court in paragraph No.2 held as under “2. This being a suit for arrears of salary Art.7 of the schedule of the Limitation Act is applicable. In Art.7 the term “wages” has been used and it is not disputed chat this would also include salary. The question is as to what should be the starting point of limitation. As per Art.7 the period of limitation would be three years from the date when the right to sue accrues. When an employee had been dismissed or removed from service, his pay and allowances would cease from the date of such dismissal or removal. In a case where the dismissal of the employee is set aside, the right to recover arrears of salary would revive. The employee could not have claimed any arrears of salary until he has been ordered to be reinstated. The right to emoluments accrued an the date when the suit was decreed and the starting point of limitation is the date of the decree of the civil court, because prior to the decree the employee would have no right to receive any salary. The Madras High Court in State of Madras v. A.N. Anantharaman ( AIR 1963 Mad 425 ) held that the terminus a quo for the suit under Art.102 (corresponds to Art.7) is the accrual of the salary which by reason of the dismissal had ceased and until a decree holding the order of dismissal or removal to be void is passed by the court, it is not open to the employee to take any steps to recover his salary. Therefore, the right to recover arrears of salary would accrue only after an order of dismissal has been set aside either in a departmental appeal or by a decree in a civil court.” It is further held that: “Therefore it is clear that the right to sue for arrears of salary accrues from the date when the salary would have become payable i.e, from the date when the order of dismissal is set aside by the court. 14. 14. In Maimoona Khatun v State of U.P.( AIR 1980 SC 1773 ) the Apex Court held that: “In cases where an employee is dismissed or removed from service and is reinstated either by the appointing authority or by virtue of the order of dismissal or removal being set aside by a civil court, the starting point of limitation would be not the date of the order of dismissal or removal but the date when the right actually accrues, that is to say, the date of the reinstatement, by the appointing authority where no suit is filed, or the date of the decree where a suit is filed and decreed.” 15. Presently, to the factual score, the plaintiff was in the service of the company from 8.1.1996 till 7.4.1999, he ceased to be an employee of the company by tendering resignation. Till that date he was in service of the company. The statement attached along with the plaint would reveal that part payment of the salary was effected for certain months and the balance remained unpaid. Therefore, the suit is to be treated as one for arrears of salary accrued on the date of his resignation and so Article 7 of the schedule of the limitation Act is applicable. As per Article 7 of the Limitation Act the period of limitation would be three years when the wages/salary accrues due to non-payment of monthly salary. As Article 7 is applied, the period of limitation would be three years from the date when the right to sue accrued. The payment of salary in the case of the plaintiff was also not regular as correctly found by the trial Court. Till 7.4.1999 he was in service. That be so, if the claim for unpaid salary was after three years from 7.4.1999 the claim will be time-barred under Article 7 of the limitation Act. It is thus clear, that the 'right to sue' therefore, accrues when a default occurs. Till 7.4.1999 he was in service. That be so, if the claim for unpaid salary was after three years from 7.4.1999 the claim will be time-barred under Article 7 of the limitation Act. It is thus clear, that the 'right to sue' therefore, accrues when a default occurs. Here, the suit was filed on 1.4.2002 within three years when the right for salary actually accrues and hence the claim raised by him is within the period of limitation and the finding of the court below that he is entitled to get salary only for the month of March and April and the unpaid salary due for the rest of the period is barred by limitation cannot be accepted as correct at any costs. He cannot be deprived of his deserving benefits and there is no legal justification for the same. To sum up, to avoid injustice, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to get a decree for realization of the entire amount claimed in the plaint as prayed for. 16. Therefore, the judgment and decree under challenge are modified and the suit is decreed as prayed for by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,19,214.65/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till recovery from the defendants. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs. The appeal is allowed accordingly.