Relief in interlocutory proceedings cannot be granted beyond the scope of the final relief claimed in the suit, and claims must be clearly defined in the pleadings.

JUDGMENT :

Anup Jairam Bhambhani J.

I.A.14279/2021

By way of the present application filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“CPC”) the plaintiff seeks a direction that defendant No. 1, M/s Royal Bank of Scotland, India (“RBS”) be directed to pay “back wages” with all consequential benefits to the plaintiff for the period from 30.03.2019 to 23.09.2021 alongwith interest thereon.

2. The principal prayer in the application reads as under:

“a) Direct Defendant No 1. to pay back wages with all consequential benefits to Plaintiff with effect from 30.03.2019 till 23.09.2021 alongwith interest as depicted in para 32 hereinabove.”

3. Ms. Manali Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, submits that at the stage when the plaintiff approached this court by way of the suit, the plaintiff’s employment had not been terminated; and therefore, arising from the cause of action cited in the plaint, the plaintiff had made the following claims in the suit:

“(A) Pass a judgment & decree in favor of the plaintiff for recovery of damages of Rs. 2,01,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores One Lakh only) against the defendants jointly and severally, along with pendelite & future interest @9% per annum till the date of full realization of entire amount;

(B) Grant a Decree of permanent or appropriate Injunctions restraining the defendant no.1 from removing him from his job due to inability to work as he was working prior to aforesaid accident else plaintiff will also be entitled for damages as per para no.13 of the plaint and appropriate court fees shall be paid on such eventuality at the appropriate stage;

(C) Declare right to livelihood of the plaintiff as right to life in view of Constitutional Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 Supp(2) SCR 51,and consequently restrain the defendant no.1 by issuing Mandatory Injunction or appropriate injunctions from taking away livelihood of the plaintiff;

(D) Allow the costs of the suit; (E) Pass such other and further orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

4. Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiff had filed an application bearing I.A. No. 8881/2018 seeking interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”), on which application, the court made an order dated 11.07.2018, the operative para of which was:

“9. There is a reasonable apprehension in the Plaintiff’s mind that due to his injury, which prevents him from doing long sittings, and filing of the present suit, he may suffer adverse consequences and his services may be terminated during the pendency of the suit. The Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in his favour. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the Plaintiff’s services shall not be terminated.”(emphasis supplied)

5. It is submitted that subsequently on 27.07.2018, defendant No. 1 assured the court that they had no intention of removing the plaintiff from employment; and based on this statement I.A. No. 8881/2018 was disposed of recording that :

“1. Ld. Counsel for Defendant No. 1 submits that the Plaintiff has written to Defendant No. 1 that he would be joining back to work from 1st August 2018. She further submits that in view of the accident which had occurred, the Plaintiff was give (sic) complete 6 months fully paid leave with reimbursement of all his medical expenses and at the moment, there is no intention of removing him from the employment. 2. In view of the statement by learned counsel for Defendant No. 1, the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC is disposed of taking the said statement on record.”

6. However, counsel for the plaintiff contends, that contrary to the statement made and assurance given on 27.07.2018, vidé notice dated 29.03.2019 defendant No. 1 terminated the plaintiff’s services; which compelled the plaintiff to file I.A. No. 4962/2019 under order XXXIX Rule 2(A) CPC, in which this