The counsel for the appellant, however, contends that the limitation would not be an issue as the appellant was pursuing his remedy before the Labour Court from 25.2.1979 to 9.8.1982, when the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The counsel would, thus, contend that Section 14 of the Limitation Act would apply in this case. The principle that the period during which the person was pursuing remedy before a Court should be excluded for computing the period of limitation would apply in cases where the suit is filed in the wrong Court i.e. the Court having no jurisdiction to entertain it or that where suit is instituted in a wrong Court in consequence of bonafide mistake of law or defect of procedure or not in cases where party has chosen altogether different remedy before a different Court having jurisdiction to grant relief. (See Lal Bihar Lal and aother Vs. Bani Madhava Khatri and others, AIR 1949 Patna293). Section 14 of the Limitation Act speaks of prosecution of proceedings in a Court which from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature is unable to entertain it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Shakti Tubes Ltd. Tr. Director Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 512, has assigned the meaning and purpose to words “other cause of like nature”. The appellant has not indicated in any manner that the approach made before the Labour Court in this case was in a belief of a bonafide mistake of law or fact or as a consequence of defect or procedure. Nothing is stated to urge that the labour Court had lacked in jurisdiction to entertain the suit or reference. The
