The court upheld the dismissal of the appellant's application for interim relief, emphasizing the lack of a prima facie case and the binding nature of the employment contract terms accepted by the appellant.

ORDER :

ARUN MONGA, J.

1. The appellant-plaintiff is before this Court against the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Sriganganagar in Civil Misc. Case No.25/2024(CIS No.68/2024), vide which his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC was dismissed.

1.1. The appellant filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions against the defendant bank, along with interim relief, primarily to restrain the bank from terminating his services or making adverse remarks in his employment record, and to direct payment of salary for three months post-resignation. He also sought issuance of requisite employment documents including the relieving letter, NOC, and experience certificate.

2. Facts first. The appellant was appointed as Assistant Vice President–Branch Head at the defendant’s Sri Ganganagar branch pursuant to an offer letter dated 11.10.2021, which he accepted. He joined duties on 12.01.2022 and was consistently rated as a satisfactory performer, having received a performance rating of 4.5 out of 5 in March 2023, a salary increment of Rs.10,500, and a reward tour to Thailand. The branch under his leadership was awarded Rs.4,66,000 as an incentive.

2.1. On 01.04.2024, the appellant’s minor son fell critically ill and required continued medical treatment in Sri Ganganagar. Despite repeated representations requesting retention at the current posting due to his son’s medical needs, the appellant was transferred to Lalheri/Khanna Mandi, Punjab on 04.04.2024. Unable to relocate, the appellant tendered his resignation on 03.05.2024 with a request for immediate acceptance and payment of three months’ salary in lieu of notice, in accordance with the terms of the offer letter.

2.2. The bank did not formally accept or reject the resignation. Instead, it issued communications dated 26.06.2024 and 14.07.2024 instructing the appellant to report to the new place of posting, failing which disciplinary proceedings would be initiated. The appellant was also denied release documents and employment credentials. A legal notice dated 14.07.2024 sent by the appellant remained unanswered.

2.3. The appellant alleged that the bank's refusal to relieve him from duties or to accept his resignation was arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. It was further contended that Clause 12 of the offer letter was unilateral, permitting termination by the bank upon three months’ notice or salary in lieu, but not affording the same right to the employee, rendering the clause inequitable and illegal.

3. The bank, in reply, denied the allegations, asserting that the appellant had accepted all employment terms, including Clause 12. It claimed the performance rewards were due to collective branch efforts and referred to a prior complaint of misconduct filed with the RBI in August 2023. The bank further submitted that the appellant had not officially informed it of his son’s condition nor furnished supporting documentation. After being granted 20 days of leave, the appellant allegedly remained absent without intimation, warranting disciplinary action. The resignation was also stated to be in contravention of Clause 12 as it lacked the required notice period.

4. Upon hearing both parties, the Trial Court found no sufficient ground to grant interim relief and dismissed the injunction application. Aggrieved by said rejection, the present appeal has been preferred.

5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the case file.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, argues that the learned Trial Court erred in rejecting the appellant's application for a temporary injunction by accepting the respondent's version of facts without fair consideration. The learned trial Court overlooked the arbitrary nature of the appellant’s employment contract, particularly Clause 12, which allows for unilateral termination. The appellant's personal circumsta