FEDERAL BANK LTD Vs. FEDERAL BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P7 judgment passed by the Additional District Court, North Paravur (for short, the appellate court) in CMA No.25/2021, dtd. 16/10/2023.

(2.) The petitioner, the Federal Bank Ltd., is a banking company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The respondent is the Federal Bank Officers' Association, a trade union which comprises officers in the cadre of Scale 1 to III (i.e., Assistant Managers, Managers and Senior Managers) of the petitioner's Bank as its members. The petitioner instituted a suit as OS No.204/2020 before the Munsiff's Court, Aluva (for short, 'the trial court') against the respondent for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent, its members and supporters from obstructing the bank officials and customers from dealing with the bank, obstructing the ingress and egress of them, committing any acts of waste or damage to the bank's property, holding any meeting or demonstration, dharna, erecting of tents, displaying posters and banners, shouting slogans within a radius of 200 metres from the premises of the head office, annex and nearby branches of the petitioner bank which are specifically described in the properties scheduled in the plaint and also for a mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the notice board, hoardings, banners and posters displayed in the plaint schedule properties.

(3.) Three items of properties are described in the plaint schedule. The plaint A schedule is the property where the head office of the petitioner's bank is situated. The Plaint B schedule property is the property where the training centre of the petitioner's bank functions, and the Plaint C schedule property is the property where the administrative office of the petitioner's bank functions. According to the petitioner, the plaint A and B schedule properties are in its absolute possession and ownership, and the plaint C schedule property is in its possession under the lease agreement. It is alleged that on 3/6/2020, the respondent and a few of its office bearers, without any notice or intimation, held a surprise dharna in front of the head office of the petitioner's bank at Aluva situated in the plaint A schedule property, holding posters, banners and placards in protest against the transfers of its employees and displayed a poster containing false and misleading contents in the notice board in the plaint A schedule property. The suit was immediately instituted apprehending further trespass and agitation in an intensified manner.