P. SARATHY versus STATE BANK OF INDIA

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 402 · Decided: 12-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P. SARATHY 
v. 
ST ATE BANK OF INDIA 
MAY 12, 2000 
B 
[S. SAGHIRAHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963-Section 14-Benefit of proceedings pending 
before "court"-Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), constituted under 
Section 41(2) of the T.N. Shops and Establishments Act whether a civil court 
C for the purposes of benefit under Section 14 of the Act-Held, Deputy 
Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) is a "court" within the meaning of Section 
14 of the Act and the proceedings pending before him were civil proceedings-
Hence, the entire period of time from the date of the institution of the 
departmental appeal as also the period from the date of institution of the 
D appeal under Section 41(2) before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour 
(Appeals) have to be excluded for computing the period of limitation for 
filing the suit-Suit-Limitation-Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 
1947, Section 41(2)-T.N. Shop$ and Establishments Rules, 1948, Rules 9 
and 9-A-Removal from services-Labour Laws. 
E 
Words and Phrases-"Court"-Meaning of 
Appellant, a promotee Branch Manager, was placed under suspension. 
After a regular departmental enquiry, he has removed from service on 
11.01.1983. Appellant challenged the removal before the Local Board of the 
Bank and the same was dismissed by it. The appellant, thereafter, filed an 
F appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act 
(Act) before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) and the same was 
also dismissed on the ground that provisions of the Act were not applicable to 
nationalised banks. 
Appellant filed a regular suit on 28.09.1988 for a declaration that his 
G removal was illegal, ultra vires and invalid and also for the reinstatement with 
consequential reliefs. This suit was dismissed by the trial court. The first 
appeal, filed by the appellant, was allowed. Respondent, filed a second appeal 
which was allowed by the High Court on the finding that the suit was instituted 
in the civil court beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the 
H Limitation Act without going into the merits of the case. Hence this appeal. 
402 
--
P. SARA THY v. S.B.I. 
403 
It was contended by the appellant that he was entitled to claim benefit of A 
Section 14 of the Limitation Act on the ground that he had represented to the 
Local Board, filed an appal under Section 41 of the Shops and Establishments 
Act, and was, therefore, prosecuting "civil proceedings" in a court with due 
diligence and the period during which such proceedings were pending, had to 
be excluded. 
It was contended by the respondent that the benefit of Section 14 was 
available only if the proceedings were "civil proceedings" and were pending 
in a court; that the Appellate Authority under Section 41(2) of the Shops and 
Establishments Act, was not a court and therefore, the benefit under Section 
B 
14 of the Limitation Act could not be legally given to the appellant 
C 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: I.I. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), which is 
the Authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments 
Act, 1947, has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon an order by which the D 
services of an employee are terminated. Under Section 41(3) of the Act, the 
order passed by him is binding on the employer as also on the employee. Thus, 
the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) may not be a "civil court" 
within the meaning of CPC but it is definitely a court (408-B-DJ 
1.2. Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not speak ofa "civil court" E 
but speaks only of a "court". Any authority and tribunal having the trappings 
of a court would be a "court" within the meaning of this Section. (408-G-HJ 
1.3. Admittedly, the appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner of 
Labour (Appeals), was within time. This appeal was dismissed on 01.09.1987 
on the ground that the provision of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments F 
Act was not applicable to the nationalised banks as held by the High Court in 
C. V. Raman case. This judgement was rendered duriQg the pendency of the 
appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals). 
[408-8; 405-A-B; 408-EJ 
C. V. Raman v. Bank of India, (1984) 2 LW 34 (Mad), approved. 
G 
Management of Bank of India v. C. V. Raman, (1984) 2 Lab. L.J. 34 
[approved in [199813 sec 1051, referred to. 
1.4. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), which was an 
authority constituted under Section 41(2) 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.