M. MUTHUMUNIANDI Vs. CITU LABOUR UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.183 of 2010, who had succeeded in convincing the trial court to grant a decree for damages for defamation, upon the said decree being reversed by the appellate court in A.S.No.37 of 2012 has come up with this Second Appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that the defendants, who belong to a rival labour union, made certain publications alleging certain irregularities on the part of the Child Development Project Officer Mrs.S.Karpagam. While doing so, they had claimed that the plaintiff who is working as a Junior Assistant in the office is also in collusion with the Child Development Project Officer. According to the plaintiff, a bit notice, which has been circulated in and around office, had resulted in publication of a defamatory allegations against him and lowering of his image in the eyes of the general public.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that there was no publication of the material said to be defamatory. According to the defendants, all that was circulated is an invitation to the members of CITU to participate in a protest being held against the activities of the Child Development Project Officer and the plaintiff who was a Junior Assistant in the said office. It is also contended that all the allegations were found to be true in an enquiry. The defendants submitted that the plaintiff has not made out that his image was lowered in the eyes of the general public because of the circulation of the bit notices and therefore, he is not entitled to a decree for damages.