Bopanna, J. - (1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-2-1976 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 337 of 1972 dismissing his suit for certain reliefs against the defendant/Bank based on the Desai Award dated 7-6-1962 passed by the National Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) on the disputes raised between certain Banking Companies and Corporations and their workmen. The plaintiff had earlier approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 3695 of 1969 which was filed on 18-6-1969 and that petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 28-7-1972 on the following terms : "Petitioners have filed these writ petitions against the State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore. This Court in W.P. No. 435 of 1969 (Sri C. Sathyamurthy v. State Bank of Mysore) decided on 30-6-1971 has laid down that an order as the one in the present case cannot be interfered with by the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and whatever else may be open to the petitioner. Following the said decision, we dismiss both the writ petitions as not maintainable. It is hardly necessary for us to state that the dismissal of these writ petitions does not prejudice the petitioners or prevent them from taking any other appropriate steps. No costs."
(2.) Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit on 15-9-1972. On the question of limitation, in para 17 of the plaint he stated as follows : "The cause of action for this suit arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court as on 19-5-1969 and subsequent dates and on 28-7-1972. The period of pendency of W.P. No. 3695/1969 from 18-6-1969 to 28-7- 1972 is liable to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 in computing the period of limitation as the plaintiff was prosecuting his claim for declaration of eligibility to continue in service till the 19th May, 1971 and for payment of salary in good faith and the Writ Petition was dismissed for defect of jurisdiction. Article 7 of the Limitation Act governs the suit ; Section 34 of the Act saves the entire claim."
(3.) The reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs are : a) A decree declaring that the order of Retirement dated 19-5-1969 made by the Defendant retiring the plaintiff from its services on the ground that the plaintiff has attained the age of superannuation, viz., 58 years, as illegal, without jurisdiction and void ; b) A decree directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 21,594.24 by way of compensation or damages, towards arrears of emoluments to the plaintiff ; and c) An accounting by the defendant in regard to the ancilliary benefits which the plaintiff would have earned in the normal course, but for the illegal order of retirement dated 75-5-T 069 made by the Defendant.;