:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.43 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.43 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.43 OF 2008 Shri Tanojkumar Balram Chaterjee ...Appellant. v. Solapur Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.A.K.Suryawanshi , adv. for the Appellant. Mr.Nitin Jamdar , adv. for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 10th September, 2008. DATE: 10th September, 2008. DATE: 10th September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties 2. This is the second appeal filed by the original plaintiff. Plaintiff was initially appointed as fire station officer by the Municipal Corporation, Solapur in 1984. In 1992, he was promoted as superintendent. In 1998, when he was Superintendent of Fire Brigade, he was suspended from the service. He filed U.L.P. no.44 of 1999 before the Labour Court alleging that the suspension and the threat of the dismissal from the service was unfair labour practice. U.L.P was dismissed by the Labour Court on 1-6-2000 holding that the plaintiff was not a workman and he was not covered under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act. Against that judgment, he preferred revision application before the Industrial Tribunal, which was dismissed. Being not :2: successful, he filed writ petition, which was also dismissed by the High Court on 10-9-2003. 3. Pending that proceeding on 3-7-2000 plaintiff was dismissed from the service after holding departmental enquiry. On 24-11-2003 he filed civil suit no.1177 of 2003 challenging the dismissal. The suit was contested on several grounds by the defendants. The trial Court after hearing the evidence came to conclusion that the dismissal was illegal, but the suit was barred by the limitation and, therefore, the suit came to be dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiff preferred regular civil appeal no.200 of 2005. Cross-objections were also filed by the defendants. The Appellate Court came to conclusion that the plaintiff/appellant has not proved that his dismissal from the service is void ab initio and that he was wrongly dismissed from the service. The appellate Court also held that the suit was barred by the limitation. Against the dismissal of the appeal, the plaintiff has come to this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff was prosecuting his remedy before the Labour Court, Industrial Court and High Court bonafide in the earlier proceedings and in view of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, that period should have been excluded for the purpose of limitation. However, :3: admitted fact is that even though he was dismissed on 3-7-2000, he had not challenged the dismissal before any authority. Proceeding before the Labour Court and the consequential proceedings were only against the suspension order and not against the dismissal. Therefore, period of limitation will have to be counted from the date of dismissal and Section 14 could not be invoked. The appellate Court also came to conclusion that the departmental enquiry was properly held and there was no illegality in that. 5. In view of the above circumstances and facts, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. 6. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)