1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in a suit, for damages on account of a defamatory statement by the first defendant and published by defendants 2 to 4. The trial court decreed the suit for payment of Rs. 5001/- with costs. The lower appellate court reversed the judgment and decree and dismissed the suit.

2. The plaintiff's case is as follows:

The plaintiff was working as Lay Secretary in the Medical College Hospital, Calicut from 1.7.76 to 15.1.1983. Thereafter he was transferred to Tirur Government Hospital as Lay Secretary and Treasurer. On 5.1.1984 a statement by the first defendant came prominently in the daily published by defendants 2 to 4. Anybody who read this news item would get the impression that the plaintiff is guilty of large scale misappropriation of Government money in connection with the purchase of goods for the hospital. The plaintiff is a person who is leading an honest life and the news item has tarnished his image in the eyes of the public. The plaintiff's demand for withdrawing such statements was not heeded to by the respondents.

3. The first defendant contended that he was the State Secretary of the Government Hospital Workers Union from 1948 onwards and also the selected representative of the Medical College Hospital Administrative Council from 1981 onwards and though the plaintiff was aware of it, the first defendant is described as mere hospital attender. He contended that the plaintiff was not transferred to Tirur on request, that the plaintiff had failed to submit accounts to the auditors and there was no accounts for Rs. 3 lakhs during 1968 to 1975. The press conference was to explain the background of proposed strike by the hospital employees. To the questions put by the press reporters the first defendant gave answers and he said that Government did not take action against those who misappropriated Government funds and some files were actually missing and there was no statement that plaintiff misappropriated any amount. The first defendant as office bearer of the Organisation of Hospital Workers had a duty to bring to the notice of the authorities about the corruption at various hospital offices and he claimed qualified privilege for his statements. The defendants 2 to 4 also filed written statement contending that the publication was made after formal enquiry and after satisfying that it was true and since it was a matter of public importance, it was published.

4. The trial court found that on a reading of Ext. Al publication a reasonable man would come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was responsible for the misappropriation. The trial court also found that the occasion in which the first defendant made the statement was not a privileged one. The publication in the newspaper was also found to have been made without any enquiry. On the above findings the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for.

5. In appeal the lower appellate court has found that the publication was per se defamatory and a reading of it would indicate that the plaintiff was involved in the misappropriation of Government funds. The appellate court however found that the statement was made by the first defendant as a trade union leader in discharge of a duty cast on him towards the society and the newspaper had also a duty cast to uphold the truth and justice. It was not made with any personal malice towards the plaintiff. Therefore the trial court's decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed.

6. The learned counsel on both sides argued the case elaborately. The substantial questions of law on which notice was issued by this Court read as follows:

a) How far malice or motive relevant in determining justification as qualified privilege of a Trade Union Leader with regard to per se defamatory statement uttered by him and published by a press.

b) If the impugned statement, made by the 1st respondent, was it made on privileged occasion and if the entire statement made by him is entitled to be protecte