The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suspension order must be supported by sufficient evidence and issued by the competent authority in accordance with the organization's rules and regulations. Additionally, the plaintiff is entitled to subsistence allowance as required by law.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Miscellaneous First appeal is filed against allowing the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC which is numbered as I.A.No.2 restraining the appellant herein from attending to his office work in the schedule premises and office of the Senior Associate Secretary pending disposal of the suit.

3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration that the letter and suspension order dated 25.04.2023 issued by the defendant Organization is null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and consequential relief of mandatory injunction. It is stated that he was joined the YMCA national council of the defendant on 20.11.1990 and worked extensively and after undergoing training in the defendant Organization training school in various parts of India. He was also appointed as Secretary based on the seniority and working experience in the year 1996. He joined in the defendant Organization in Bangalore, his previous seniority was fully taken into consideration and he was appointed as per the staff seniority practices in Bangalore YMCA. The plaintiff completed 25 years of extensive service in the position of the Secretary. It is also contended that he sought for the promotion to the post of General Secretary based on his seniority and work experience and the same was brought to notice of the office bearers or president of the defendant Organization and others, the same was not considered, but appointed junior Secretary in experience in service as General Secretary of the defendant Organization. Since he had brought up certain illegalities in the Board and in the manner in which certain immovable properties and schools came to be sold illegally by the board. When he brought out all these factors, he has been targeted by the defendant Organization, who are illegally suspended the plaintiff from the defendant Organization without seeking the approval of the Board of Directors and also without following the procedure established under bye laws.

4. It is also contended that the defendant hurriedly issued the suspension order letter dated 25.04.2023. The defendant is guilty of having issuance of suspension order based on the office memo dated 10.04.2023 and 17.04.2023, inspite of he has given reply on the very next day on 11.04.2023 stating that time rendered to answer within 24 hours is unreasonable and unsustainable. It is contended that there is no provision for suspending Secretaries and Associate Secretaries in the Organization, the defendant has adopted a procedure which has not validly exercised as per the constitution and bye laws of the defendant YMCA with intent to force the plaintiff to leave the Organization. The suspension order is complete violation of the constitution and bye laws of the defendant Organization. The plaintiff also inter-alia sought for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the defendant causing obstruction in discharging the duties as Secretary of the defendant Organization. In support of the said application, an affidavit is sworn to and the said I.A is numbered as I.A.No.2.

5. The Trial Court issued notice and defendant has appeared and filed I.A.No.5 under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of CPC R/w Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint and also filed statement of objections contending that the very suit itself is not maintainable and no cause of action to file the suit. It is also contended in the statement of objections that the plaintiff has been kept under suspension with effect from 25.04.2023 onwards pending enquiry of the reasons stated in the order of suspension and before suspending him, show cause notice was given and reminder was also issued on 17.04.2023. Belated reply was given on 18.04.2023. The plaintiff being an employee of the defendant Organization, he cannot claim as a matter of right for on appointing him