JUDGMENT Sudesh Bansal, J. - appellant-defendant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as "RSRTC") has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, assailing judgment and decree dated 16.4.1994 in appeal No.224/1992 passed by additional District Judge, No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur affirming the judgment and decree dated 6.9.1991 passed by additional Civil Judge No.5, Jaipur City, in Civil Suit No.425/1989 whereby while termination order dated 20-2-1984 of respondent plaintiff (hereinafter "plaintiff") was declared as illegal, void and violative to principles of natural justice, he has also been declared entitle for back wages and monetary benefits from date of termination i.e. 20.2.1984. 2. The facts of case are that plaintiff was appointed on the post of Conductor on permanent basis but later on his services were terminated by defendant RSRTC vide order dated 20.2.1984. The termination was made on account of remarks against plaintiff that he was carrying passengers without tickets. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against termination order to appellate authority, who dismissed the appeal 18-8-1984. The review was filed, which too dismissed on 8-4-1987. Plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration, challenging termination order dated 20.2.1984 as also order of appellate authority dated 18-8-1984 and review order dated 8.4.1987, alleging inter alia that his termination is stigmatic and he has been terminated from service without conducting any enquiry as also without giving any opportunity of hearing on alleged charges. Plaintiff prayed for declaring termination order and order of appellate authority as illegal and void and claimed for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits and monetary benefits. 3. The RSRTC failed to file written statement, however, opposed the suit of plaintiff by contending that plaintiff was appointed as daily rated employee and his services were terminated, after serving the charge sheet and after affording opportunity of hearing, due enquiry was conducted before removal of plaintiff. Other objections as to the suit is barred by limitation and Civil Court does not have jurisdiction, were also raised. 4. The trial Court settled points of determination and recorded evidence of both parties. Plaintiff appeared as witness and produced documents to prove that his termination was illegal and was passed without conducting enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing, therefore, termination is ex facie illegal and in violation to principles of natural justice. Defendant examined Dw.1 Rakesh Kumar and exhibited termination order. 5. Plaintiff appeared as witness and produced documents to prove that his termination was illegal and was passed without conducting enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing, therefore, termination is ex facie illegal and in violation to principles of natural justice. Defendant examined Dw.1 Rakesh Kumar and exhibited termination order. 5. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record concluded that the termination of plaintiff from service is not simpliciter, but because of stigmatic remark. The trial Court observed that since termination of plaintiff is stigmatic and no enquiry was conducted, no opportunity of hearing was given, no principle of natural justice was followed, thus, impugned termination order is illegal and void. accordingly, the trial Court vide judgment dated 6-9-1991 allowed plaintiff's suit declaring the termination order and order of appellate authority as also of Reviewing authority as illegal and void. The trial Court directed to give monetary benefits to plaintiff from the date of filing of suit i.e. 30-5-1989. 6. Defendants preferred first appeal against judgment and decree of trial Court dated 6.9.1991, which was decided by appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.4.1994 and while upholding the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff was held entitled to get backwages from the date of his termination i.e. 20.2.1984, hence, the RSRTC is in second appeal. 7. Learned counsel for appellant-defendant has argued that plaintiff was not a permanent employee, but was a daily rated employee, however, due enquiry was conducted before his termination. He has argued that suit for declaration filed by plaintiff on 30.05.1989, assailing termination order dated 20.2.1984 is barred by limitation and the civil court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present suit between employer-employee, which is in nature of Industrial Dispute. 8. This court vide order dated 30-8-2007 framed the substantial question of law 'Whether, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent?'. 9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused impugned judgment passed by the trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court, as also record of the case. 10. as far as nature of termination as simpliciter or stigmatic is concerned, both Courts have concurrently held on the strength of oral or documentary evidence that the termination was stigmatic. 9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused impugned judgment passed by the trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court, as also record of the case. 10. as far as nature of termination as simpliciter or stigmatic is concerned, both Courts have concurrently held on the strength of oral or documentary evidence that the termination was stigmatic. The fact finding of two courts below are based on appreciation of evidence and no perversity has been pointed out in such fact findings, so as to give rise any question of law much less substantial question of law. 11. as per record, courts below have counted the limitation for filing suit for declaration from the last order of Reviewing authority, affirming the termination order. The issue of limitation as to whether it should be counted from the date of termination order or from the date of last order of appellate or Reviewing authority has been decided by coordinate bench of this Court in Ram Ratan Sharma Vs. R.S.R.T.C. in S.B. CSa No.245/1996 decided on 1.3.1997, which has been followed in subsequent case of Mali Ram Banjara Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, in S.B. CSa No.204/1999 decided on 19.03.2013. In view of proposition of law laid down therein it is no more res integra that limitation can be and should be counted from the last order, including orders of appellate/ Reviewing authority. Therefore, the substantial question of law relating to limitation deserves to be answered in negative in view of aforesaid two judgments. 12. as far as the question of law that civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit is concerned, such issue has been considered and decided by the apex Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa [ (2009)4 SCC 299 ] and it has been held that where enquiry has been conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, there would be violation of statutory Regulations as also right of equality as contained in article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such a situation a civil suit will be maintainable for the purpose of declaration that termination of service was illegal and consequences flowing therefrom. Therefore, the question of law relating to maintainability of suit before the Civil Court is answered in negative. 13. In such a situation a civil suit will be maintainable for the purpose of declaration that termination of service was illegal and consequences flowing therefrom. Therefore, the question of law relating to maintainability of suit before the Civil Court is answered in negative. 13. Similarly the question of law relating to entitlement of plaintiff for backwages from the date of his termination is also valid in view of the judgment of the apex Court in case of Bal Mukund Bairwa (supra). In the opinion of this court, the first appellate court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in awarding backwages to plaintiff from the date of his termination order and decreeing plaintiff's suit as a whole. Thus, this question of law is also answered in negative. 14. There is no substance in question of law as raised by defendant. The Hon'ble apex Court has held in case of Kondiba Dagadun Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [ (1999)3 SCC 722 ] that question of law which has already been decided by a larger Bench of the High Court concerned, or by the Privy Council, or by the Federal Court or by the Supreme Court, mere wrong application on facts of a particular case does not create another substantial question of law. In such view of the matter there is no substantial question of law in instant matter. 15. In case of Umerkhan Vs. Bismillabi [ (2011)9 SCC 684 ] Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded that if a second appeal is admitted on substantial question of law, while hearing second appeal finally, can re-frame substantial question of law or can frame substantial question of law afresh or even can hold that no substantial question of law involved, but the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction of Section 100 CPC without formulating substantial question of law. 16. In the present case substantial questions of law as framed have been considered and this court is of the opinion that all other questions of law raised are essentially either question of facts or have already been settled by way of judicial precedents. Thus, in this second appeal, no substantial question of law involved. accordingly, the second appeal is not liable to succeed. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. 17. any other pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 18. Record of courts below be sent back forthwith.