P.T. ASHA, J.

1. The above Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.12.2008 on the file of XIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.19669 of 2008 in O.S.No.2043 of 2005 in and by which the post trial amendment sought for by the plaintiff/revision petitioner herein was dismissed.

2. The brief narration of the proceedings prior to the filing of the revision petition is narrated herein below.

3. The Revision Petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.2043 of 2005 for the following relief:-

(a). Declaring that the plaintiff is a permanent Employee of the first Defendant Services of the Plaintiff as Project Assistant.

(b). Granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from terminating the plaintiff's Services.

4. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, the revision petitioner has narrated his initial employment into the first respondent centre and the subsequent transfer of his service with the third respondent trust. The revision petitioner has narrated as follows:-

"The plaintiff humbly submits that the plaintiff joined as Office Assistant on 01.11.1994 in the first defendant's Operational Centre. The First Defendant is a Global Network Working for the sustainable use of the Oceans. It set up its centre in India in 1993 at the place of the 2nd defendant. The Centre is a division of the third defendant which is a Trust from 11.11.1998, the service of the plaintiff were lent to the third defendant and the same was approved in the meeting of the Trustee."

5. The petitioner would contend that the project which was initially entered into between the first and second defendants on 08.11.1993 was periodically extended and the last of such extensions was on 03.11.2003 in and by which the agreement was renewed for an further period of five years i.e., till 03.11.2003. It was the further contention of the petitioner that on 31.03.2005 he was orally informed that his services was not required although the tenure of the project was extended upto 03.11.2008. The revision petitioner would contend that he was appointed by the first respondent as an Office Assistant and his services had only been lent to the third respondent for the project. He has therefore filed the suit for the relief mentioned therein. The second respondent had filed a written statement in and by which they have contended that there was no master servant relationship between the revision petitioner and the second respondent. The second respondent had only provided space for the third respondent to conduct his research projects and therefore no claim could be made as against the second respondent.

6. The first and third respondents herein had filed a written statement in which they have contended that the first respondent was a non profit, non Governmental Organization headquartered at Malta and that it has its operational centre in the Campus of the second respondent. The third respondent is a trust set up by the second respondent in partnership with the first respondent in August 1998. They would further contend that this trust was set up to promote awareness, research, consultancy, trainee and Education in order to enhance the sustainable development of natural resources, protection and conservation of the marine environment etc., They would further submit that the agreement that they have entered into with the second respondent and third respondent was that the second respondent would provide the basic infrastructural facilities to the centre, cooperate in conducting training programs, developing new courses, establishing links with other relative institutions, bring out major publications etc., The agreement does not touch upon the conditions of the staff working for the first respondent. The extension of the agreement was only between the respondents and had nothing to do with the employees.

7. In paragraph 17 and 18 of the said written statement, the first and second respondent had submit as follows:-

"17. It is further submitted that at present