MISHRA, JTVS

Employees' Federation, Bombay, represented by its president and four others, who are defendants in a suit for permanent injunction, have preferred the instant appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court against the order of temporary injunction pending suit by a learned single Judge in 0. A. No. 45 of 1991.

2. The plaintiff-first respondent herein is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its head office at 7-B, Veli Street, Madurai, and having its branches in Madras and all over Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Goa. It consists of three divisions, viz., Sundaram Motors, Madras Auto Service and TVS, Madurai. Madras Auto Service is engaged in the business of dealing in spare parts and other accessories for motor vehicles. Sundaram Motors and T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Limited, i.e., the other two divisions, are also engaged in the business of rendering sales, service and repairs to automobiles of various descriptions, primarily with reference to the motor vehicles, which are governed by exclusive franchise given to them by manufacturers, viz., the Premier Automobiles Ltd., Bombay, Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, Bombay, Mahindra Nissan Limited, Hyderabad, and Ashok Leyland Ltd., Madras, are some such manufacturers who have given to Sundaram Motors and T. V. Sundaram lyengar and Sons franchise, and their activities are extended to substantial parts of Southern India in 17 centres, having units in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Pondicherry and Andhra Pradesh. The fifth defendant-appellant, Thangappan, it is alleged, claiming that he was the president of the TVS Employees' Federation (the first defendant-appellant) purported to prepare a video cassette stated to be depicting the struggle of TVS workers, according to the plaintiff-respondent, with the

"malicious intention of maligning the reputation of the plaintiff-respondent's units with ulterior motive with no justification whatsoever". The penalty-respondent has alleged," apparently with a view to instigate the loyal workers of the plaintiff-company and its units have not only prepared the film and video cassettes maligning the reputation of the plaintiff, but has purported to pass it on to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 for exhibiting in Madras theatres, defendants Nos. 2 and 3, being Sundarain Motors Employees' Union, Madras, represented by its president and Sundaram Industries Employees Union, represented by its president. The only submission to support why the press plaintiff-respondent has inferred that the video cassette has been prepared solely with a view to maligning the reputation of the plaintiffs units throughout India is stated in the plaint in these words"

The plaintiff understands and believes the same to be true that the film and video cassettes make a false version about the plaintiffs management dealing with the workers. They are wrong since they have introduced in the video cassettes to make it appear as if the workers are struggling in the plaintiffs companies. It is made as a documentary film. The plaintiff understands that the film is made by way of video clippings. As far as the petitioners-workers are concerned there is no grievance whatsoever, as already stated. Assuming the workers have any grievance, they have legal remedies under the various labour enactments under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, etc. In fact, the workers can always agitate rights, if any, through the recognised union. Since the workers are given all facilities and very good scale of pay, etc., the workers never showed any displeasure or had no occasion to make demands, and the relationship of the plaintiff and all other workers are absolutely cordial, and there was no occasion for workers to have any grievance against the plaintiff. Therefore, any film prepared by the defendants depicting as if the workers of the plaintiff are put to harassment and they are struggling are all false. In any event, neither by