The Secretary, Motor Transport Employees Union, CITU Division Committee v. M/S. Prabht Transport & Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 AS.No. 126 of 1997() -------------------OS.180/1994 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT: ----------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MOTOR TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES UNION, C.I.T.U. DIVISION COMMITTEE T.C.ROAD, THALASSERY. 2. P.O.RAGHAVAN, PADINHARE PANOLIKANDY VEEDU, KOLLAMAL, P.O. CHOMBALA BADAGARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENTS: - ------------- 1. M/S. PRABHTH TRANSPORT, THALASSERY REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER, N.T.SUDHA, W/O. K.T. BHASKARAN NAMBIAR, 'SMRITHI' HOLLOWAY ROA, THALASSERY – 670 101. ## 2. RAJAN A.K. - C/O. MOTOR TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES UNION, C..I.T.U. DIVISIO COMMITTEE T.C. ROAD, THALASERY. ## 3. PREMAN, C/O. MOTOR TRANSPROT EMPLOYEES UNION, C.I.T.U. DIVISION COMMITTEE T.C. ROAD, THALASSERY. THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## JUDGMENT NO REPRESNETATION TODAY ALSO. APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT. 12.6.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------ A.S.126 OF 19974 JUDGMENT 12TH JUNE 2008 ## **PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** A.S.No.126 of 1997 **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated: 21[st] November, 2008 ## **JUDGMENT** Defendants 1 and 2 in a suit for damages which was decreed in part by the trial court has come up in appeal. The 1[st] appellant (1[st] defendant) is the Secretary of a registered trade union representing employees of the stage carriages and the 2[nd] appellant (2[nd] defendant) was the conductor employed by the plaintiff. The 1[st] respondent is the plaintiff, a partnership firm who at the relevant time was operating their only bus bearing No.KRN 4660 plying on the route Aralam Farm to Kozhikode and respondents 2 and 3 in the appeal are defendants 3 and 4 who have been arrayed obviously for the reason that the third respondent was remaining ex parte in the trial court and the 2[nd] respondent is not available to join as an appellant. The suit was for damages amounting to Rs.1,20,500/- for the wrongful acts committed by the defendants resulting in wrongful loss to the plaintiff. The pleadings have been correctly narrated by the learned Subordinate Judge in the judgment and I do not venture to narrate them over again. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Subordinate Judge formulated the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable? A.S.No.126/97 - 2 - 2. Whether the defendants are liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff? ## 3. What is the correct amount? ## 4. Relief and costs. At trial the evidence consisted of the oral testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 4 on the side of the plaintiff and those of D.Ws.1 to 3 on the side of the defendants. The documentary evidence on the side of the plaintiff consisted of Exts.A1 to A16 which are correctly described in the appendix to the judgment. Similarly, documentary evidence on the side of the defendants consisted of Ext.B1 which is also correctly described in the appendix to the judgment. 2. Issue No.1 regarding the maintainability of the suit was raised on the basis of a contention of the appellants founded on Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act. The learned Subordinate Judge would answer that issue in favour of the plaintiff relying on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in **Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. T.M.Nagarajan** (1988 LAB.I.C. 1067) and also the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in **Simpson and Group Companies Workers and Staff Union v. Amco Batteries Ltd.** (1992 LAB.I.C. 414). The learned Judge has held that Section A.S.No.126/97 - 3 - 18 does not protect the high handedness on the part of the trade unions and their members to indulge in acts of violence or other wrongful acts or actionable wrongs in furtherance of a trade dispute. The learned Judge has observed that the general principle that if the ordinary citizen crosses the limit set by law for his rights and indulges in acts of violence, he would lose the benefit of protection under the law and under such a contingency the general law of torts which is applicable to citizens general would be applicable in his case also. According to the learned Judge, the above proposition is applicable in the case of trade unions also in relation to the special rights or protection or privileges guaranteed to trade unions by Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act. The learned Judge held accepting the pleaded case that some of the respondents who are not at all employees of the plaintiff's concern caused physical obstruction to the plaintiff's vehicle and made it impossible to operate the bus on the route. According to the learned Judge, this was not a case where the employees of the plaintiff's concern struck work as a result of which the plaintiff was unable to operate the bus. Since on the allegations in the plaint third parties who had nothing to do with the bus have caused physical violence and obstruction preventing the plaintiff from A.S.No.126/97 - 4 - operating the bus on the route, the acts alleged will constitute actionable wrongs giving a right of the plaintiff to claim damages on the basis of tortious liability. On that reasoning, the learned Judge found that the suit is not hit by Section 18(1) of the Trade Unions Act. Analysing Sub-section (2) of Section 18, the learned Subordinate Judge would take the view that the said sub-section also cannot come to the rescue of the defendants since the definite allegation is high handed tortious acts were committed by the fellow defendants in the suit with the connivance and concurrence of the 1[st] respondent, a registered trade union. Having gone through the statutory provision, I am of the view despite the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the finding entered by the learned Subordinate Judge on issue No.1 regarding the maintainability is correct. 3. On appreciating the evidence which came on record, the learned Subordinate Judge found that the evidence was to the effect that the acts done by defendants 1 and 2 were wrongful acts casting tortious liability and that defendants 1 and 2 are liable to compensate the plaintiff. According to the learned Judge, since evidence justified a finding that the 2[nd] defendant and his supporters did wrongful acts with the knowledge and awareness of the 1[st] defendant and as A.S.No.126/97 - 5 - instructed by the 1[st] defendant-union, the union was also liable to pay damages. Coming to issue No.3 regarding quantum of damages, the learned Subordinate Judge fixed that the net loss sustained by the plaintiff per day at Rs.800/- and accordingly concluded that the total loss of earnings which could be awarded to the plaintiff for 8 days during which the bus was kept idle by the defendants at the Thalassery bus stand was Rs.6400/-. The learned Subordinate Judge would award a further amount of Rs.7000/- by way of general damages towards mental tension and loss of reputation to the plaintiff's concern. In the result, the suit was decreed for a total amount of Rs.13,400/- as compensation with proportionate costs. It was ordered that the amount will carry pendente lite at the rate of 12% and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has addressed very strenuously on the various grounds raised in the appeal memo. My attention was drawn by the learned counsel to the evidence in the case. Counsel referred to Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act. Drawing my attention to the findings entered by the court below, learned counsel submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge himself had found that no destruction had been caused to the vehicle and if the A.S.No.126/97 - 6 - plaintiff found it impossible to operate the services for the 8 days mentioned in the judgment, that was because of his employees had struck work. When all the employees of a vehicle struck work and the plaintiff operator is unable to operate the service, then the situation will be squarely governed by Section 18(1). 5. I have considered the submissions addressed at the Bar by the learned counsel for the appellants. I have scanned the entire evidence on record and reappreciated the same. I am of the view that the evidence available in the case has been correctly appreciated by the learned Judge and the findings entered by him on the various issues which were formulated for trial are founded on evidence and are well reasoned ones. The quantification of damages was also done by the learned Subordinate Judge in a reasonable manner. I do not find any warrant for interfering with the judgment under appeal. The appeal fails and the same will stand dismissed. However in deference to the enthusiastic submissions addressed before me by the learned counsel for the appellants, there will be a direction that the parties will suffer their costs in this appeal. srd ## **PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE** A.S.No.126/97 - 7 -