S. C. Agrawal , J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit [Civil Suit No. 337/83] filed by B. S. Aulakh, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) wherein he sought a declaration to the effect that the Resolution dated December 20, 1977 passed by the Board of Directors of the Punjab State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. [for short SUGARFED], respondent No. 2 herein, by which the plaintiff was relieved of the post of Plant Protection Officer and the said post was abolished, was invalid, illegal and without jurisdiction. In the said suit the plaintiff also claimed that he was the employee of Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., (for short MARKFED], appellant herein, and that he was only on deputation with SUGARFED.
(2.) The facts briefly stated are as follows: By order dated December 12, 1972, the plaintiff was appointed as Plant Protection Expert in the MARKFED. The said appointment was on probation for a period of one year. Before the completion of the period of probation, the plaintiff was discharged from service of MARKFED by order dated June 12, 1973. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order of discharge with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and during the pendency of the said appeal by order dated November 8, 1973 he was appointed on the post of Plant Protection Officer in SUGARFED. Under the said order of appointment, 50 per cent of the pay and allowances of the plaintiff were to be paid by MARKFED. The plaintiff was confirmed on the post of Plant Protection Officer in SUGARFED by order dated February 7, 1975. By order dated December 20, 1977, the post of Plant Protection Officer in SUGARFED was abolished and the services of the plaintiff were terminated. The plaintiff filed a Writ Petition [Civil Writ Petition No. 1828/77] in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court, however, felt that the Writ Petition was highly belated and thereupon the same was withdrawn as prayed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. On October 28, 1983, the plaintiff filed the Civil Suit which has given rise to this appeal. The trial Court by judgment dated November 20, 1987 dismissed the said suit of the plaintiff and it was held that the suit was barred by limitation inasmuch as the impugned Resolution dated December 20, 1977 came to the knowledge of the plaintiff at least between December 28 to 30, 1977 and the suit was filed on October 28, 1983. The trial Court also rejected the claim of the plaintiff that at the time of the passing of the impugned resolution he was on deputation with SIGARFED and was an employee of MARKFED. The appeal filed by the appellant against the said judgment of the trial Court was, however, allowed by the Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh, by judgment dated October 11, 1991. The Addl. District Judge held that the suit was not barred by limitation on the ground that the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the resolution with regard to his claim to be an employee of MARKFED was disposed of by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies by order dated September 5, 1983 and the suit was filed soon thereafter on October 3, 1983. The Addl. District Judge also found that the plaintiff was an employee of MARKFED and was on deputation with SUGARFED with effect from November 11, 1973 till December 20, 1977. In order to come to the said finding the Addl. District Judge place3d reliance on the following documents: 1] Letter [Exhibit PW 8/2] from Shri S. L. Kapur, the then Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and ex officio Administration of MARKFED, addressed to the Chairman, SUGARFED wherein it was stated: "Shri Aulakh will be an employee of Marketing Federation but will work in Punjab State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. till he is recalled." 2] Letter dated May 4, 1975 [Exhibit PW-8/14] from the Establishment Officer on behalf of the Managing Director, MARKFED, addressed to the Chairman, SUGARFED, wherein it is stated: "The Management agrees to his proposed confirmation on 7-5-75 as P. P. E., MARKFED in SUGARFED as per existing arrangement. However, he will continue in your Federation till he is recalled." 3] Order dated April 26, 1977 [Exhibit PW 8/19] passed by the Chief Minister of Punjab holding that the order of termination/discharge dated June 12, 1973 was null and void and the plaintiff is an employee of MARKFED as Plant Protection Officer and that he was no deputation with SUGARFED.
(3.) MARKEFED filed a second appeal [R. S. A. No. 2240 of 1991] in the High Court against the said judgment of the Addl. District Judge. During the course of hearing of the said appeal an application was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for placing on record the correct copy of the letter written by Shri S. L. Kapur and for calling the original letter from the office of SUGARFED. It was submitted on behalf of MARKFED that the letter Exhibit PW 8/12] filed by the plaintiff and on which reliance had been placed by the Addl. District Judge to hold that the plaintiff was an employee of MARKFED and was on deputation with SUGARFED, was a fabricated document and that the original letter does not contain the sentence Shri Aulakh will be an employee of Marketing Federation but will work in Punjab State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. till he is recalled" and instead it contains the sentence. "However, Shri Aulakh will be working as a wholetime employee of the Punjab State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd." In support of his aforesaid submission, a photostat copy of the original letter of Shri S. L. Kapur, addressed to the Chairman of SUGARFED, as procured from the record of SUGARFED, was submitted in the High Court. The said contention was, however, not accepted by the High Court in view of the other two documents, namely, letter dated May 4, 1975 [Exhibit PW 8/14] sent by the Establishment Officer, MARKFED to the Chairman of SUGARFED, and the order of the Chief Minister of Punjab dated April 26, 1977 [Exhibit PW-8/91]. The High Court also placed reliance on the order dated September 9, 1983 [Exhibit PW 8.29] passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, on the appeal filed by the plaintiff, for holding that the suit was not barred by limitation. By judgment dated February 21, 1994, the High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by MARKFED. A review petition was filed by MARKFED in the High Court wherein it was pointed out that the other documents, namely, letter dated May 4, 1975 [Exhibit PW-8/14] and order dated September 5, 1983 [Exhibit PW-8/29] were also fabricated documents. In support of the said review petition a number of documents were filed and it was prayed that the matter may be duly enquired into. The High Court did not consider it fit to entertain the review petition and the same was dismissed by order dated May 6, 1994. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated February 21, 1994 MARKFED has filed this appeal.;