Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 2873
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
A. Soundararsan, President, CMRL Employees Union & Another - Appellant
Versus
The Chennai Mertro Rail Limited, Company Registered under Companies Act, Hereby Represented through is DRO/Legal Officer, K. Tharapagaraj, Chennai - Respondent
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 588 of 2021 in C.M.P. No. 5072 of 2021
Decided On : 17-04-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Ravindran
For the Respondent:C. Sankar, Advocate.
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 - Companies Act 1956 - Trade Union Act, 1926 - Section 18 and 2(g) - Company - Seeking Decree in Permanent Injunction - Suit had been filed by a Company registered under Companies Act 1956 and represented by its DRO/Legal Officer seeking a judgment and decree in nature of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful functioning and administration – Held, On examining plaint, omission to mention about proceedings before Conciliation Officer, stares on face of plaintiff - Subsequent to issuance of pamphlets/letters and prior to institution of suit, parties have moved before Conciliation Officer, who had also advised them not to take any coercive action as against each other - Once a trade dispute had been raised by parties, then a Civil Suit is barred under Section 18 of Trade Union Act, 1926 – Court is consciously not examining each one of documents filed by defendants, in view of limitation imposed while examining a application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC - But Court is of opinion that Court is justified in narrating sequence of events - Plaintiff had filed the present suit basing cause of action on pamphlet/letters issued by defendants herein but had suppressed information about Conciliation processes which took place before Conciliation Officer and before institution of suit - That is a suppression of a material fact and plaint suffers on that ground - Quite apart from suppression of material facts, plaint itself is barred under Section 18 of Trade Union Act 1926 - Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 03.01.2020 made in I.A.No.03 of 2019 in O.S.No.1394 of 2020 passed by the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and to consequently allow I.A.No.3 of 2019 in O.S.No.1394 of 2019.
1. The Revision Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No. 1394 of 2019. The suit is now pending on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. Questioning the order dated 03.01.2020 in I.A.No.03 of 2019, the Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the present defendants in the suit.
2. The Suit in O.S.No.1394 of 2019 had been filed by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited, a Company registered under Companies Act 1956 and represented by its DRO/Legal Officer against A.Soundararasan, President, CMRL Employees Union and R. Elangovan, Vice President, CMRL Employees Union, seeking a judgment and decree in the nature of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful functioning and administration of the Chennai Metro Rail Limited by circulating unwarranted public notices, issuing unwarranted communications to the service providers of the CMRL and also for the costs of the suit.
3. The present petitioner herein had filed I.A.No.3 of 2019 under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC,1908, seeking to reject the plaint, claiming it was barred by law particularly under Section 18 of the Trade Union Act, 1926.
4. The plaintiff stated that along with other projects envisaged by the m, they also envisaged the creation of two corridors under Phase I. First corridor started from Washermenpet and ended at Airport for a length of 23.01 km and the corridor II started from Chennai Central and ended at St.Thomas Mount for a length of 22.0 km. The project started in the year 2009 and was completed during February -March, 2018. It was also opened for public service in the month of February 2018. It was further stated that the first and the second defendants are said to be the President and Vice President of CMRL Employees Union and they are not employees of CMRL. It was stated that the first and the second defendants along with the employees of CMRL had formed a Union in the name of CMRL Employees Union but the same was not recognized by CMRL. The defendants had submitted representations to the CMRL regarding the formation of the said union.
5. The plaintiff further claimed that the office bearers of the defendants herein have violated the law and acted in an arbitrary and unilateral manner against the interest of the plaintiff's company. The plaintiff further claimed that in the month of February 2018, the CMRL Employees Union circulated certain pamphlets to the public causing allegations against the administration of CMRL by threatening the commuters, that the travel through Metro Rail itself was an unsafe travel and claimed that thereby the defendants created panic in the minds of the commuters. The defendants had also alleged that the functioning of the metro rail was on loss.
6. Thereafter, the plaintiff also stated that on 21.11.2018, the defendants herein had sent a communication to M/s.BVG India Limited and M/s.Karnataka Commercial and Industrial Corporations Pvt. Ltd., who are the contractors of CMRL engaged for Station Management Services like cleaning and issuing tickets on behalf of CMRL. The said contractors had also intended to agree to a letter of acceptance of CMRL for providing the service of Station Controller/Station incharge.
7. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the communication dated 21.11.2018 furnishing wrong information had been forwarded by the defendants alone with a judicial order pronounced in W.P.Nos.31491, 31492 and 31550 of 2016 claiming that M/s.BVG India Ltd., and M/s.Karnataka Commercial and Industrial Corporations Pvt. Ltd., have been restrained from taking up work relating to proposed new Station Controller Assignments with CMRL and the said communicatio
