Mhc MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU O.A.No.756 of 2025 in C.S.No.170 of 2025 S. Manogaran, and 58 others M/53, S/o Soundarajan Conductor EDP.No.A 24826, No.135, Sree Balaji Nagar, Meppur, Nazarathpettai, Thiruvallur dist Chennai -600 123 MTC Central Depot. and 57 Others Applicant(s) Vs Metropolitan Transport Corporation Oozhiyar Progressive Union and 5 others Rep by its Gen.Secretary, Pallavan salai, (Near

OA NO. 756 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-08-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
O.A.No.756 of 2025 in
C.S.No.170 of 2025
S. Manogaran, and 58 others
M/53, S/o Soundarajan Conductor EDP.No.A
24826, No.135, Sree Balaji Nagar, Meppur,
Nazarathpettai, Thiruvallur dist Chennai -600 123
MTC Central Depot. and 57 Others
Applicant(s)
Vs
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Oozhiyar
Progressive Union and 5 others
Rep by its Gen.Secretary, Pallavan salai, (Near
Kalaiarangam) Che-600002 and 5 Others
Respondent(s) For Applicant(s):
Mr.N.G.R.Prasad
For Mr.S.R.Thirumoorthy
For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Viduthalai (Senior Counsel)
For M/s.R.Revathy (For R3 to R6)
M/s.Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan (For D2)
ORDER The present application has been filed to grant ad interim injunction restraining the Respondent No.3 to 6/Defendant No.3 to 6, their agents, men or anyone claiming through them from interfering with the day-to-day affairs of the 1st respondent/1st defendant Union by announcing the Office bearers of the 1st respondent/1st Defendant Union both at the Central Office Level or at Depot level, or in any manner interfering with its day-to-day affairs/functioning, pending disposal of the above suit.
2. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants would submit that the respondents 4 to 6 had been declared as the President, General Secretary and Treasurer without any election being conducted as per the bye-laws of the first respondent. He would submit that originally an election notification was issued on 26.02.2025. However, by a further Notification dated 18.03.2025, the elections to the Depot Level stood postponed to the month of May 2025. Without conducting any election whatsoever, the notification was issued, declaring the respondents 4 to 6 as being elected to the post of President, General Secretary and Treasurer. He would further submit that the list of other office bearers would be published in future. He would submit that such a declaration has not been envisaged under the bye-laws and that the announcement of election of the respondents 4 to 6 alone is contrary to the bye-laws, that too, without conducting any election to the said posts. Hence he would seek this Court to grant an order of interim injunction.
3. Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 4, 5 and 6, who have been nominated as office bearers of the first respondent, relying upon the counter affidavit filed by them, would submit that the first defendant is a form of the second defendant, which in turn, is a form of the third defendant and that the first and the second defendants are bound by the third defendant. The defendants 1 to 3 are structured in such a form that they are unified ideologically on the same platform. As regards the internal matters, including appointments, elections and leadership decisions, these often involve coordination and consensus of the third defendant, who, in order to preserve discipline, avoid internal disputes and prevent operational difficulties, takes decisions in the interest of the said defendant. He would further submit that the plaintiffs, who are also members of the third defendant are bound by the core principles of the party, its frame work and now cannot selectively object to the decisions made by the third defendant. He would further contend that the third defendant being the in the higher realm, can well within its rights to avoid conflict between its members, had appointed respondents 4, 5 and 6. Therefore, the applicants cannot be said to be prejudiced in any manner as they are still bound by the dictates of the leadership of the third defendant. He would further pray this Court to grant further time to file counter on behalf of the third defendant and would also indicate that the first defendant had not been served in the matter.
4. M/s.Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the second defendant would submit that in a suit filed before the XIII Assistant City Civil Court in O.S.No.6195 of 2024, recording the written statement filed by the defendants therein, who are the first and second defendants herein, this Court had decreed the suit, granting a mandatory injunction to hold elections to the posts of General Secretary and Treasurer of the first defendant/plaintiff. Therefore, the second and the third defendants are bound by the decree passed in the said suit.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side.
6. The bye-laws of the first defendant envisage that the affairs of the
first defendant would be carried on by the Central Executive Committee, who shall all be elected directly by all the members of the Union. The case of the applicant is that even though the election had been announced, no election had been conducted and in violation of the bye-laws. The respondents 4 to 6 have been nominated by the third respondent. The same has been categorically admitted to by the respondents 4 to 6 in their counter affidavit.
7. When a democratic process had been envisaged under the bye-law of the first respondent, there is no role either for the second respondent or for the third respondent, in particular, to contend to nominate or select individuals of their own choice without violating the bye-laws of the first respondent. This Court would have appreciated, if the same had been unanimously agreed to by the members of the first respondent. However, this Court had been approached by at least 59 members of the first respondent, complaining of violation of the bye-laws in the appointment of respondents 4 to 6. Hence, a prima facie case has been made out by the applicants as there has been a clear violation of the bye-laws of the first respondent. This Court also finds that there is a balance of convenience and irreparable injury that would be caused to the members, who have a right to elect their representatives.
8. It is further to be noted that the 5th respondent has been nominated as
the General Secretary of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is represented by the General Secretary. The 5th respondent having entered appearance in his personal capacity and having authorized the 4th respondent to file a common
counter in the application, has not bothered to enter appearance for the 1st
respondent. This Court is unable to comprehend the conduct of the 5th respondent but is prima facie of the view that he is adopting dilatory tactics in this Court proceeding.
9. Hence, there shall be an order of injunction as prayed for.
10. The third respondent shall file counter by 25.08.2025.
11. List the matter on 25.08.2025.
07-08-2025
kak
To
1. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Oozhiyar
Progressive Union and 5 others
Rep by its Gen.Secreatary,
Pallavan salai, (Near Kalaiarangam) Che-600002
2. Labour Progressive Federation
also known as Thozhilalar Munnetra Sanga Peravai, Kalaingarangam, No. 25, Thiyagaraya Street, North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Rep. by its General Secretary.
3. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam,
Thalamai Kazhagam, Rep.by its Secretary, Anna Arivalayam, 369, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 018.
4. Ptc S.Ravi (a) Sivakumar
SPG.Driver (EDP.No. D16720) S/o.K.Seenuvasan, C/o.No.17 A, Krishnadass Road, MTC Limited, Perambur Depot, Chennai-600 012.
5. D.Arumugam
STM. (EDP.No. A23060) S/o.V.N.Dakshinamoorthy, C/o.No.17 A, Krishnadass Road, MTC Limited, Perambur Depot, Chennai-600 012.
6. M.Perumal
Conductor(EDP .No.C15341) C/o.MTC Ltd, Vadapalani depot, Ch-26 
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
kak
O.A.No.756 of 2025 in C.S.No.170 of 2025
07.08.2025