JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 26.08.2010 passed in A.S.No.85 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.06.2009 passed in O.S.No.24 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli.)

1. The concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.24 of 2005 by the III Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli and in A.S.No.85 of 2010 by the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli, are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.

2. The respondent / plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S.No.24 of 2005, on the file of the trial Court for the relief of permanent injunction, wherein, the present appellant has been shown as defendant.

3. In the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiff is the Management of Manapparai Maris Spinners Limited, Manapparai and on 16.11.2004, there was a dispute between one of the employee by name Velusamy and the Supervisor in respect of allocating overtime duty to a co-employee by name Ayyakannu, due to which, disciplinary action was initiated and the erring employees were placed under suspension and the employees of the plaintiff formed a trade union and registered the same in November, 2004 and indulged in strike, agitation and dharna and they have also restrained the local employees from attending the duty. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and its men from indulging in agitation activities within a radius of 300 meters from the plaintiff Mill premises.

4. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendant, it is averred that the Management has treated the employees as cattles and bonded labourers and even the women employees were not treated humanly and the plaintiff has placed the Vice-President of the union M.Velusamy, who has given voice in support of the employees, under suspension. The defendant agreed to the advices of the Conciliation Officer, but the Management has refused to change its stand. The defendant's Union never committed any unlawful act and the union is voicing its grievances only in a legal and peaceful manner, after intimating to the appropriate authorities, but the plaintiff has refused permission even to hoist the union flag infront of the Mill. The suit claim was barred by Industrial Disputes Act and Trade Unions Act and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

5. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, one Sekar was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A20 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.13 were marked.

6. On the basis of the rival pleadings on either side, the trial Court, after framing necessary issues and after evaluating both the oral and documentary evidence, has decreed the suit in favour of the respondent / plaintiff by granting a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff Management by injuncting the defendant-trade union from holding any violent activities during Agitation and Dharna and had directed the workmen to raise slogan and objections beyond 300 meters away from the factory premises.

7. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant as appellant, had filed an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.85 of 2010 stating that the suit claim is barred by Industrial Disputes Act and Trade Union Act and by the provisions of the Specific Relief Act and the civil Court lacks jurisdiction. Further, it is stated that the subsequent events also have to be considered and the members of the defendant were acquitted in the criminal case foisted at the behest of the plaintiff. The first appellate Court, after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record, has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The first Appellate Court allowed the additiona