1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (CONTEMPT JURISDICTION) WEDNESNDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU CONTEMPT PETITION NO.828 OF 2007 ********* State Bank of India, Represented by its Assistant General Manager (H.R.) Local Head Office, College Lane, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. ...Petitioner Vs. 1.S.Gunasekar The General Secretary, State Bank of India Ambedkar Trade Union, No.635 Raniammaiyar Street, Periyar Nagar, Chennai – 600 039. 2.M.V.Thangasami The President, State Bank of India Ambedkar Trade Union, No.635 Raniammaiyar Street, Periyar Nagar, Chennai – 600 039. 3.G.Arasakumar The Treasurer, State Bank of India Ambedkar Trade Union, No.635 Raniammaiyar Street, Periyar Nagar, Chennai – 600 039. ... Respondents Contempt Petition praying that this Court be pleased to commit and punish the respondents for wilful disobeying the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 21/02/2007 and made in O.A.No.181 of 2007 in C.S.No.132 of 2007. The above Contempt Petition came up on 06/06/2011 before this Court for hearing in the presence of M/s.S.Sethu Raman, Advocate for the petitioner herein; and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of Mr.Balan Haridas, Advocate for the respondents herein; and upon reading the petition and affidavit of B.Surendran, filed herein; and having stood over for consideration; the Court made the following order:- The contempt petition came to be filed for the alleged disobedience of the order passed by this Court in O.A.No.181 of 2007 in C.S.No.132 of 2007 dated 21.02.2007. 2. By the aforesaid order, this Court in an OA taken out in a pending suit in C.S.No.132 of 2007 granted an an-interim injunction from carrying out activities against the interest of the Bank by pasting posters, circulating hand bills, placards or in any other manner in defaming and affecting the image of the bank. 3. On being ordered by this Court, respondents 1 to 3 have filed separate counter affidavits. 4. Heard the arguments of Mr.S.Sethuraman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 5. It is seen from the records that the suit was filed against the State Bank of India Ambedkar Trade Union of which the present respondents were the General Secretary, President, Treasurer respectively. The suit was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 filed claiming damages for a sum of Rs.11 lakhs on the ground that the respondents were pasting pictures in public and issuing hand bills to the public at large by making defamatory allegation and causing damage to the reputation of the bank and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out activities against the interest of the bank by pasting posters, circulating hand bills, etc in defamatory nature affecting the image of the Bank directly or indirectly. 6. In the Original Application filed along with the suit, the Bank sought for a temporary injunction, which reads as follows:- "... to grant order of Interim Injunction restraining the defendants, their men, or agents from carrying out activities against the interest of the Bank by pasting posters, circulating Hand Bills, Placards or in any other manner defaming and affecting the image of the Bank pending disposal of the suit." 7. The respondents have filed a written statement in the main suit dated 06.04.2007. It was claimed that the Trade Union is a registered Trade Union having about 450 members. The allegation that publication of posters were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 irresponsible and affecting the commercial interest of the public and customer was denied. They have only acted to protect the interest of the bank. When complaints were made regarding missing of cash from the cashier, which were not recovered and such things were repeatedly happening, there was no other effective method to control that menace. They were not working contrary to the interest of the bank. It is only when the administration of the bank failed and when there was a large scale successive missing of cash from the currency chest, they highlighted the same in the public. They had only raised a question when the guard himself corner the money, then it is nothing but ‘fence eating the crop’. The posture published by them were intended to call upon the Chief General Manager to accept the moral responsibility. 8. It is the stand of the petitioner Bank that notwithstanding the injunction, the Trade Union continued to paste posters and samples of two such posters were put in the pages 39-42 of the typed set. In the first set of posters, it is seen that in the Avinashi Branch, Rs.36 lakhs were found missing from cash chest and in the Ambur Branch due to the conduct of the corrupt officers, gold ornaments were replaced with covering ornaments. Therefore, the General Manager of the Chennai circle head quarters were appealed to change the situation failing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 which he was asked to step down. This according to the Bank had violated the interim order passed by this Court. 9. Before proceeding with the defence taken by the respondents, it must be seen that the temporary injunction granted by this Court only prohibited carrying out activities against the interest of the Bank by pasting posters, circulating hand bills and placards. It is not clear as to how the postures appended in the typed set had in any way violated the orders of this Court. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it was stated that respondents were not put on notice about the interim order granted by this Court. Further, mandatory notice under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC was also not issued. It was stated that the tenure of the second respondent as President had come to an end on 25.06.2006. Similarly, the tenure of the third respondent as Treasurer had come to an end on 25.06.2006 and this was duly informed to the bank. The attempt of the petitioner Bank is only to harass the respondents and they have not violated the orders of this Court. The first respondent claimed that he has great respect for the orders of this Court. Only to scuttle the legitimate trade union activities and to instill fear, the present contempt application has been taken. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 11. With reference to the contentions of pasting posters, it was stated that quite huge chunk of money were missing from the currency chest of various branches and in paragraph 7 of the counter, it was averred as follows: "7. ...I further state that following is the places where cash was missing from the currency chest. a.Kuzhithalai Branch - Rs. 5,00,000/- b.Aminjikarai Branch - Rs. 5,50,000/- c.Salem Branch - Rs. 2,00,000/- (missing from centre table) d.Salem Branch - Rs. 3,00,000/- e.Rasipuram Branch - Rs. 6,00,000/- f.Avinsasi Branch - Rs. 6,00,000/- g.Avinasi Branch - Rs. 1,00,000/- h.Avinasi Branch - Rs.30,00,000/-" 12. It was also stated in paragraph 9 of the counter that the Union has addressed several representation to the Chief General Manager and requested them to take action but no action was taken against the officers. The Trade Union also demanded an enquiry into the matter. Likewise in the Avinashi Branch, Rs.30 lakhs was found missing from the currency chest and no measures were taken. When public money was looted and it was growing into alarming proportions, there was nothing wrong in bringing such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7 issues to the public. In respect of the same issues, disciplinary action was also sought to be initiated by the petitioner. Therefore, it was alleged that they have not committed any violation of the orders of this Court. 13. It is unfortunate that a public sector bank like the petitioner Bank should file a suit not only for claiming damages, for loss of reputation but also seeking for a prior restraint on the trade union in publishing hand bills, posters and putting up placards. It is seen from the contents of the posters that it was only an appeal to the Bank for taking action. By no stretch of imagination, that can be said to be violating the orders of this Court. On the other hand, specific instances were pointed out to the Chief General Manager to take appropriate action. Instead of taking action on the grievances projected by the trade Union, the Bank represented by its Assistant General Manager had filed the suit. In fact under the State Bank of India Act, it is only the Bank represented by its Board of Directors can represent the Bank, though there may be possibility of delegated power entrusted to its subordinate officers. When the higher level officers were asked to take action on the subordinates, certainly it would not amount to defaming the bank. In any event, the injunction is only to prevent the respondents from pasting posters and circulating handbills or in any other manner defaming and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8 affecting the image of the bank. The image of the bank cannot be confused with the officers at the lower level committing fraud, misconduct, embezzlement. Certainly when a Trade union finds that action is not being taken, they can take the issue to the public and the grievance projected is no way amount to defaming the bank. An employee working in a public sector bank also owes a public duty when public funds were frittered away or misappropriated. 14. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in S.D.Sharma v. Trade Fair Authority of India and others reported in 1985 II LLJ 193 recognised the right of the working class to hold demonstration in shouting slogans and in paragraph 28, it was held as follows:- "28. ...It is possible that during the course of speech or demonstration some kind of slogans which may not be very proper may have been raised. But then this country recognises the holding of demonstration an though one may not be very happy that sometimes demonstrations may use a language which is not very polite one cannot also ignore that in the heat of movement and when mass of people are raising slogans in support of their demands and more so when they feel that for over two years the demands have not been fulfilled it is possible that some kind of harsh words and slogans may have been raised. But all this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9 is a far cry from the charge which had necessarily to be proved before the petitioner can be held guilty these slogans and that their action was subversive of discipline. One or two slogans even if touching on the border of permissive parameters cannot be torn out of their context and considered in isolation. In order to appreciate the impact of any slogan the total overall picture must be kept in view and when we look at the picture it is peaceful meeting of the employees held in dignified manner raising their demands no doubt also shouting slogans, but mostly in support of their union and demands." (Emphasis added) 15. Infact, a trade union has been given power to demonstrate and it includes various forms of protest. It has been recognized as a recognized mode of redress. The Supreme Court in B.R.Singh and others v. Union of India and others in dealing with the case of public sector employment vide its judgment reported in 1989 II LLJ 591, in paragraph 16 had observed as follows:- "16. ....The right to demonstrate and, therefore, the right to strike is an important weapon in the armoury of the workers. This right has been recognised by almost all democratic countries. Though not raised to the high pedestal of a fundamental right, it is recognised as a mode of redress for resolving the grievances of workers." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10 Publishing posters and distributing hand bills is a means to ventilate the grievances of the employees and free speech in our country is recognised as a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution subject to reasonable restriction. 16. However, the suit is yet to be tried and any further finding given herein may affect the suit itself. These findings are rendered only for the purpose of disposing of the contempt petition. This Court is satisfied with the explanations offered by the respondents. Moreover, respondents 2 and 3 are no longer holding office in the Trade Union. 17. In the light of the above, the contempt petition stands dismissed. Witness the Hon'ble Thiru M.YUSUF EQBAL, The Chief Justice of High Court at Madras, as aforesaid, this the 29th day of June, 2011. SD/- DEPUTY REGISTRAR (OS) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2011. COURT OFFICER (O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the orders/judgments/Decrees in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11 Cns.` CONTEMPT PETITION No.828/2007 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU ORDER DATED : 29/06/2011 FOR APPROVAL :07/07/2011 APPROVED ON :08/07/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/