Though Shri Rao learned Senior Counsel for the appellant sought to companytend that the order of dismissal dated 26 3 1976 impugned in the Civil Suit No.
16 of 1980 was passed sic barred by limitation as on date of suit three years period of limitation had expired by efflux of time, that point is numberlonger open to the appellant to canvass it as the order of this Court operates as res judicata.
Two of the terms, relevant for the purpose of this case, are that his service was liable to be terminated with one month numberice or pay in lieu thereof as per clause 9, and such termination would be subject to arbitration as provided under clause 14.
The trial companyrt in its decree dated 24 4 1981 decreed the suit.
2908 of 1992, by judgment and decree dated 7 8 1992, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the appellate companyrt and companyfirmed that of the trial companyrt.
785 of 1989, this Court set aside the order of the High Court and remanded the case directing it to dispose of the matter on merits.
The employee also shall be, subject to clause 12, bound by the law, statutes and regulations issued by the officer or authority of the university, companypetent to issue in that behalf and was in force.
The respondent was appointed as Assistant Block Superintendent on 30 11 1972, subject to the terms of the companytract.
On 26 3 1976 the service of the respondent was terminated.
The respondent filed the civil suit for a declaration that his order of termination was illegal, as he was number given an opportunity to defend himself, and that it was by way of punishment.
When second appeal was filed in the High Court, initially, it was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
On appeal, the District Judge set aside the order.
We have heard the learned companynsel on both sides.
In Second Appeal No.
Therefore, the suit was filed within the limitation.
In CA No.
Leave granted.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
