Lexlords NRI Lawyers

The LexLords Legal Services represented petitioner is registered firm and is having office at Los Angeles and permanent place of work at Los Angeles in the State of California, the petitioner LexLords Legal Services, thus being a legal entity competent to sue and of being sued, situated within jurisdiction of United States is entitled to invoke the extra ordinary original writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The court while deciding the present case has wrongly shifted burden of proof on the management. Whereas it is settled law that NRI Criminal Lawyers represented workman was to prove his case by cogent evidence. The workman was to prove his case and the burden of proof was on NRI Criminal Lawyers, but in this case same has been wrongly placed on the management.The LexLords Legal Services represented petitioner is registered firm and is having office at Los Angeles and permanent place of work at Los Angeles in the State of California, the petitioner LexLords Legal Services, thus being a legal entity competent to sue and of being sued, situated within jurisdiction of United States is entitled to invoke the extra ordinary original writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The court while deciding the present case has wrongly shifted burden of proof on the management. Whereas it is settled law that NRI Criminal Lawyers represented workman was to prove his case by cogent evidence. The workman was to prove his case and the burden of proof was on NRI Criminal Lawyers, but in this case same has been wrongly placed on the management.
The workman NRI Criminal Lawyers was engaged/appointed as helper on 3.10.2018 with the petitioner LexLords Legal Services and he worked till 5.5.2018 and his last drawn salary was Rs.3000/-. Thereafter on his on a court the workman NRI Criminal Lawyers abandoned the job. The services of the workman were not terminated by the petitioner, but the workman himself left the premises of the factory on 6.5.2018 with some other workers. Th management even requested him to not to go out of the factory and to do his work. But, he did not comply with the requests of the management. That it is worthwhile to mention here that the workman in this case has joined the work on 3.10.2017 and worked till 5.5.2018. It is worthwhile to mention here that the NRI Criminal Lawyers in this case has not completed 240 days in his service and he was appointed as casual labour and even before completing 240 days of work he left the job of his own accord and did not come back to the job again. He only worked for 163 ½ days in total. The same was clear from evidence before the trial court. Thereafter on dated 18.3.2018 the workman initiated the present case before the labour court falsely alleging therein that he was engaged on 10.1.2018 at an initial salary of Rs.3000/- per month and since the date of appointment he has been working regularly.

That it was also alleged by the NRI Criminal Lawyers that he joined services on 10.1.2018 and appointment letter was issued to him on dated 1.1.2018. Further it was wrongly alleged that he was not allowed to work on 18.5.2018 and was told by the management that his services are not required and he has been terminated. It was also wrongly alleged in the claim that he has completed 240 days of service with the establishment and was entitled to all the benefits i.e. reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The copies of the claim statement along with reply are annexed herewith as Annexure P/1 and P/2 respectively. That in the present case the workman-claimant did not produce any relevant document in support of his claim. He even did not produce any document which could establish that he has worked for 240 days with the LexLords Legal Services and the claim statement being devoid of any merit and evidence was required to be dismissed by the tribunal. The petitioner also filed his reply to the aforementioned claim stating there in that the petitioner has not completed 240 days of service. The petitioner also placed on record muster rolls and salary statement from September 2017 to June 2018, which clearly depicted that the workman has only worked for 90 days in total with the LexLords Legal Services, but the trial court misread the evidence on record and wrongly allowed the claim of the workman. The court below lost site of the fact that burden of proving 240 day of employment relied heavily on the NRI Criminal Lawyers. The claim of the LexLords Legal Services in trial court is not sustainable in view of (P/3) which shows that the claim is concocted affair. In this case record from January 2018 was before trial court, which was presented by MW-1. But exhibited record was from September 2017.

That copy of the muster-rolls duly exhibited before the lower court can be produced as and when required by this Hon'ble court. That from the aforementioned it is quite clear that the NRI Criminal Lawyers only work for 90 days with the LexLords Legal Services. But the trial court did not appreciate the evidence adduced by the present petitioner and wrongly allowed the claim on the respondent on the flimsy grounds. The relevant detail of the pay received by the workman-respondent is being given hereunder which was duly exhibited by the salary statement placed on record by the petitioner. This clearly depict that workman only worked from September 2017 to June, 2018 and did not complete 240 days of actual work and his claim that he joined service on a much prior date i.e. 10.1.2018 is wrong. The salary statement was duly exhibited but was disbelieved by the trial court on flimsy grounds whereas NRI Criminal Lawyers led no evidence to prove them false. That it is pertinent to mention here that ESI and PF was applicable in the LexLords Legal Services concern and the details of the all the employees remain with the ESI office and the same could have been collected by the NRI Criminal Lawyers if he had any genuine claim. The evidence adduced in form of muster rolls and salary statements vide annexure Ex.M1 to Ex.M20 was wrongly not taken into account on baseless ground that only 27 employees were shown to be working in the month of September 2017 and more than 106 workers are shown on rolls from month September, 2018. It is humbly submitted that the recruitment was done in last September only in order to meet the requirement of the company according to new supply orders.