TAMIL NADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD Vs. T VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question to be considered in these revision petitions is whether the City Civil Court, Madras, has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent herein. THE relevant facts are as follows: THE respondent joined the service of first petitioner bank as a clerical apprentice in August, 1984 and he was appointed as a clerk in 1985 with effect from 22.1.1985. He was confirmed in service in February, 1986. He was working in Calcutta and transferred to Madras in July, 1989. By order dated 12.11.1990 he was transferred to Pannaipuram branch of the first petitioner. THE Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Employees" Union raised an industrial dispute questioning the validity of the transfer. While the matter was pending before the Conciliation Authority, the respondent filed the suit O.S.No.9867 of 1990 on 29.11.1990 in the City Civil Court, Madras for a declaration that the order of transfer dated 12.11.1990 is male fide, illegal and unjust and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from transferring him from Madras to Pannaipuram. He also prayed for a permanent injunction directing the petitioners to allow him to continue at Madras. In the plaint, he alleged that he was the Vice-President of the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Employees" Union and the Management was in furiated by the protest demonstrations organised by the Union. He referred to the show cause notice issued to him on 25.10.1990 for having organised protest demonstrations and his reply dated 3.11.1990. He stated in paragraph8 of the plaint as follows:

(2.) HE filed I.A.No.22348 of 1990 for an interim injunction restraining the defendants from implementing the order of transfer dated 12.11.1990 and I.A.No.22349 of 1990 for an interim direction directing the second defendant to permit the respondent to work in his office pending disposal of the suit.

(3.) THE 17th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, who heard the applications, held that the civil court had jurisdiction to decide the dispute in the suit as it would not be governed by Sec.25-T and item 7 of Schedule V of the Industrial Disputes Act. He also held that the order of transfer was vitiated by mala fides. On those findings he granted the prayers in both the petitions. Against the order in I.A.No.22348 of 1990, C.R.P.No.2269 of 1991 has been filed. Against the order in I. A.No.22349 of 1990, C.R.P.No.1531 of 1991 is filed.