The Madras High Court has restrained the three top office-bearers appointed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) to the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Oozhiyar Progressive Union (MTCOPU) from interfering with the day-to-day affairs of the trade union.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu granted the interim injunction after 59 members of MTCOPU filed a joint civil suit complaining that the DMK and its affiliated body Labour Progressive Federation (LPF) had appointed the office-bearers at will without conducting elections.

Advocate N.G.R. Prasad, assisted by R. Thirumoorthy, said, though an election notification was initially issued on February 26, 2025, the polling was not conducted and suddenly, the names of the office-bearers were published in the DMK organ Murasoli on June 22, 2025.

The publication stated that Ravi alias S. Sivakumar, D. Arumugam and M. Perumal had been appointed as the president, secretary and treasurer of MTCOPU and that the names of the remaining office-bearers at the central-level as well as depot-level would be announced later.

Mr. Prasad contended such nomination/appointment by the DMK or the LPF had not been envisaged under the bylaws of MTCOPU and therefore, the three office-bearers must be necessarily injuncted from interfering with the day-to-day activities of the trade union.

On the other hand, senior counsel R. Viduthalai, representing the DMK and the three new office-bearers, said, the political party, the LPF as well as MTCOPU were structured in such a way that they were unified ideologically on the same platform. He said the 59 plaintiffs must abide by the decision taken by the DMK.

He said, the political party takes certain decisions related to appointments, elections and leadership in the trade uion affiliated to it in order to maintain discipline, avoid internal disputes and prevent operational difficulties and that the present appointments were also made to avoid conflicts.

After hearing both sides, the judge pointed out that the three new office-bearers had admitted they had not been elected to the posts. He said, neither the DMK nor the LPF could nominate or appoint the office-bearers when the bylaws of MTCOPU require conduct of elections for those posts.

“This court would have appreciated, if the same had been unanimously agreed to by the members of the first respondent (MTCOPU). However, this court had been approached by at least 59 members of the first respondent complaining of violation of the bylaws 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 bylaws 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… Hence, there shall be an order of injunction as prayed for,” the court order read.