P H DANIEL Vs. K N KRISHNA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by the defendants in a suit for damages on the ground of defamation. The learned Subordinate Judge of Palghat decreed the suit awarding a sum of Rs. 5000/- as damages together With the plaintiff's costs.

(2.) The plaintiff Shri K. N. Krishna Iyer is the Managing Director of Emerald Valley Estates Ltd., which is a company owning the Meraflores Estate at Nelliyampathy and the Bedaguli Estate in Karnataka. The defendants are the President and the General Secretary, respectively, of the Estate Staff Union of South India which we shall refer to as the "Union". The Union represents the staff of the various estates in South India About 9000 employees are members of the Union which was registered as early as 1947. The object of the Union is to protect and promote the interests of the staff of the estates. The activities of the Union are regularly reported in its journal called the "Plantation Worker". The journal is not sold to the public. It is distributed only among members of the Union who are not in arrears of their subscriptions. The journal during the period in question was distributed among 5000 members. In June 1970 there was an incident involving the plaintiff and Shri K. J. George who was a member of the staff of Meraflores Estate. George was then an active member of the Union and he was the President of its local branch at Nelliyampathy. George was transferred from Meraflores to Bedaguli. George and the Union regarded this transfer as an act of victimisation. According to George, when he reported for duty at the Bedaguli Estate where the plaintiff resides, he was, at the point of a pistol, compelled to write out a letter of resignation and put his signature to blank stamped papers. George was driven out of the estate in the middle of the night. He had to walk back to Nelliyampathy. He made a complaint concerning this incidental the police stations at Chamarajanagar and Nemmara He submitted a complaint to the District Collector, Palghat, and other, officers. The incident was reported in newspapers like Malayala Manorama and Mathrubhumi Shortly after the incident, George went to Coimbatore and informed the defendants of what had happened at Bedaguli and showed them the report in the newspapers. Conciliation proceedings regarding this and connected matters were initiated, and they ultimately resulted in a reference to the Industrial Tribunal. On 28th March 1971, the 21st annual conference of the Union was held at Punalur at the Government High School hall. The hall was packed to full capacity. The audience consisted of the members of the Union and a few invitees including the Minister for Labour. In his presidential address the 1st defendant, Dr. P. H. Daniel, referred to the incident concerning George and circumstances in which be is said to have submitted his resignation at Bedaguli in a language which is per se defamatory of the plaintiff. This speech was reported in full in the "Plantation Worker" in December 1971. An editorial also appeared in that issue concerning the plaintiff and his conduct towards his employees. The reference to the plaintiff in the editorial is also per se defamatory. It is in respect of these libellous statements which appeared in the journal that action has been brought by the plaintiff for damages.

(3.) In answer to the plaint allegations, the defendants averred in their written statement that the occasion on which the speech was delivered by the 1st defendant was privileged and that the 1st defendant bona fide believed that what he stated was true. He spoke on that occasion as the President of the Union and in the honest belief that he was speaking in the discharge of his official duties and in furtherance of the common interest of the Union. It was also averred that the reporting of the speech and the editorial comments in the journal constituted privileged communication as it was made in the discharge of the official duties of the defendants and in furtherance of the common interests of the members of the Union. The defendants denied that, either in making the speech or in reporting the same with the editorial comments, they were in any manner actuated by malice towards the plaintiff. Various other contentions were also raised by the defendants in answer to the plaint allegations, but they are not relevant to the present appeal as the only question which is urged before us by the appellants' counsel, Shri Narayanan Poti, is whether or not the defendants are protected by qualified privilege