PRITAM DEV SOOD Vs. PURI BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant in the present appeal is that the learned courts below have erred in dismissing the suit as one being barred by time. In order to save the suit being hit by the provisions of Limitation Act, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order of termination dated 28.10.1981 was never served or tendered to the appellant, as such, limitation would start from the date of his retirement, which is alleged to be 15.11.1986. This contention is seriously controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents on facts and law.

(2.) In order to determine the merits or otherwise of this contention reference to necessary facts would be inevitable.

(3.) The plaintiff (appellant herein) filed a suit for declaration that the order of termination dated 28.10.1981 is illegal, wrong, arbitrary, mala fides ultra vires and is in contravention of the terms and conditions of service agreement and the principles of natural justice. The ancillary prayer in the suit was, with regard to consequential benefits for the period 5.4.1981 to 31.12.1985 and thereafter terminal benefits. The appellant joined the service of the respondents herein (defendants in the suit) on 25.5.1960 as supervisor at Moga. The plaintiff worked in different units and offices of the defendants, which in the beginning was proprietory concern and then it was converted into partnership and finally into a private limited company. The plaintiff claimed that he was not treated well by the respondents and therefore, the plaintiff accepted a job of equal status in better salary with other concern at Bathinda, but thereafter he was again taken back into service by the defendants. According to the plaintiff, he was appointed in terms of the letter dated 1.1.1979. Because of his sincere work and efforts he earned profits for the concern. It was averred that the plaintiff was not paid any salary since 5.4.1981, as a result of which an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, was filed on 25.5.1982 and thereafter one more application was filed but relief to the appellant was declined by the Authority under that Act vide its order dated 8.10.1985 on the ground of jurisdiction. According to the appellant on 4.9.1986 during the course of proceedings the defendants gave copy of letter of termination dated 28.10.1981, which has been assailed in the suit with consequential reliefs. The plaintiff claimed total nearly Rs. 3,00,000/- on various accounts, the details of which have been given in the plaint, with interest.