Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3753
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
M.Jambunathan – Plaintiff
Versus
Southern India Cinematographers Association A Trade Union and Ors. – Defendants
CS.No.950 of 2010
Decided On : 01-12-2016
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Satish Kumar for Mr. R.Parthasarathy
For the Defendant : Mr. C.P. Palanichamy
Headnote:
Cinematographer - Membership Termination - Bye-law No.4, 19 - The court discussed the provisions of bye-law No.4 and 19 of the 1st Defendant Association, which dealt with forfeiture of membership and removal of a member. The court found that the Plaintiff was illegally terminated from the 1st Defendant Association and that the 2nd Defendant Association violated the principles of natural justice by issuing a non-cooperation letter without giving the Plaintiff an opportunity to show cause. The court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to question the audited accounts and was entitled to damages for loss of business, livelihood, and mental agony.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff, a Cinematographer, was wrongfully removed from the 1st Defendant Association and issued a non-cooperation letter by the 2nd Defendant Association, leading to economic hardship for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff raised objections regarding financial irregularities and diversion of funds, which led to his dismissal. The Defendants denied the allegations and claimed that the suit was filed due to the Plaintiff's unsuccessful election attempts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Plaintiff was illegally terminated from the 1st Defendant Association and that the 2nd Defendant Association violated the principles of natural justice. The court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to question the audited accounts and was entitled to damages for loss of business, livelihood, and mental agony.
Issues: The court addressed issues related to the compliance of bye-laws in the Plaintiff's termination, the duty of the Defendants to produce accounts, the Plaintiff's entitlement to question the audited accounts, the entitlement to claim damages, and the overall relief sought by the Plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Plaintiff was illegally terminated from the 1st Defendant Association and that the 2nd Defendant Association violated the principles of natural justice. The court also found that the Plaintiff was entitled to question the audited accounts and was entitled to damages for loss of business, livelihood, and mental agony.
Final Decision: The civil suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiff for the reliefs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (g) with costs, and dismissed for the reliefs (e) and (f). The Plaintiff was awarded damages valued at Rs.5,00,000 caused by the loss of business and livelihood and mental agony.
This civil suit has been filed to pass a judgment and decree, against the Defendants:-
(a) declaring that the resolution passed by the General Body of the 1st Defendant on 1.8.2010 and the consequential order dated 4.8.2010, removing the Plaintiff from the primary membership of the 1st Defendant Association are null and void.
(b) declaring that the order of non-cooperation dated 27.7.2010 against the Plaintiff issued by the 2nd Defendant is null and void.
(c) granting permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the rights of the Plaintiff to carry on his profession as a Cinematographer in the Film Industry in South India, without any interference whatsoever.
(d) directing the Defendants 1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff damages valued at Rs.5,00,000/- caused to the Plaintiff on account of loss of business and livelihood and mental agony.
(e) granting mandatory injunction directing the 1st Defendant to produce its books of accounts duly audited for the period from 1.4.2007 till date.
(f) granting mandatory injunction directing the 3rd Defendant to produce all its statement of accounts duly audited, with effect from 1.4.2002 till date.
(g) directing the Defendants 1, 2 and 4 to jointly and severally pay the costs of the suit to the Plaintiff.
2. The Plaintiff is a Cinematographer by profession and is a member of the 1st Defendant Association. The 2nd Defendant is the controlling Association of about 22 Associations, dealing with the film industry in Southern India. The 2nd Defendant Association controls all other Associations, like the 1st Defendant Association, Producers Association, Directors Association, Musicians Association, Lightmen Association, etc. Each of these 22 Associations, like the 1st Defendant Association, have their own bye-laws, rules and regulations. The Plaintiff's membership number is 00730. Bye-law No.4 of the 1st Defendant Association deals with forfeiture of membership and it reads as follows:-
“4. FORFEITURE OF MEMBERSHIP:-
Every person upon being admitted a member of the Association shall be deemed to agree to abide by the rules of the Association in every respect and to be liable to forfeit membership at any time, if in the opinion of the Executive Committee such member has filed to abide by the rules provided always that before arriving at a decision the Executive Committee has given adequate opportunity to the member concerned to explain his case before the General Body.”
Similarly, bye-law no.19 relates to members and interest of the Union. It deals with removal of a member and it reads as under:-
“19. MEMBERS AND INTEREST OF THE UNION:
Any office bearer or member of the Union found working against the interests of the Union may be removed from the Union or otherwise punished on a resolution to that effect passed at a General meeting of the Union provided the members concerned is given previous intimation of the action proposed to be taken.”
The Plaintiff has claimed in this suit that he had been wrongfully removed as a member of the 1st Defendant Association. He has further stated that the 2nd Defendant Association, which is the controlling Association, has issued a non-cooperation letter, calling upon all 22 Trade Unions not to engage the services of the Plaintiff in their production activities. This has virtually lead to economic death of the Plaintiff. The 3rd Defendant Trust had been created by the 1st Defendant Association for taking care of the interest of the families of the Cinematographers, education of children and the expenses of the dependants. They also give pension to the Cinematographers. It had been created by a Trust Deed dated 16.3.1995. The circumstances leading to the dismissal of the Plaintiff were that in March 2010, he came to know that huge amounts were diverted by the 4th Defendant, who is the Secretary of both the D
