Lexlords NRI Lawyers

Brief facts of the case as disclosed in the demand notice/claim statement filed by the workman are that he was appointed by the respondent represented NRI Family Lawyers on 20.1.2018 at the salary of Rs.2500/- per month. The work and conduct of the claimant has been remained satisfactory during his tenure with the NRI Family Lawyers. On 1.1.2018 the management issued a written appointment letter to the claimant and when the workman went to the management as usual to join his duty on 18.5.2018, he was not allowed and stopped from entering into the premises of respondent and he was informed that his services are no longer requirement by the respondent and his services have been terminated. The claimant further stated that his services have been terminated illegally and arbitrarily without giving any notice or charge sheet and without following the mandatory provisions. Therefore the claimant had prayed for reinstatement in service with continuity thereof and full back wages.

The NRI Family Lawyers filed written statement alleging that the Governor of California has committed mistake by referring the aforesaid matter to the court as the workman has not completed 240 days of continuous service with the respondent. It was further alleged that no cause of action has accrued to the claimant as the management has not terminated the services of claimant rather he himself has abandoned the job. Remaining allegations were denied and prayer for dismissal of claim statement.

The claimant filed rejoinder controverting the plea taken in the written statement and reasserting those of the claim statement. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were settled by learned predecessor of this court vide order dated 2.6.18:-

1. Whether the claimant had himself abandoned his services or his services were illegally terminated by the NRI Family Lawyers, if illegally terminated then to what relief, he is entitled to?OPW

2. Whether the claimant had completed period of more than 240 days continuously preceding the date of termination of his service or not?OPWM

3. Relief.

To prove its case workman appeared as WW-1 and reiterated the contents of claim statement as well as demand notice. On behalf of NRI Family Lawyers MW-1 appeared and tendered his affidavit Ex.MW1/A as well as Documents Ex.MW-01 to Ex.MW-22.

Both the issues are inter-connected and inter-related. Hence they are taken up together. It has been argued by Authorized representative for the workman that the claimant was appointed as Helper on 20.1.2018 by the NRI Family Lawyers and he worked upto 14.5.2018. His last drawn salary was Rs.2500/- P.M. on 15.5.2018 his services were illegally terminated by the respondent without any notice or without issuing any charge sheet or conducting any enquiry, which is in contravention mandatory provisions. It was further contended that the claimant has also completed continuous service of 240 days with the NRI Family Lawyers preceding the date of termination of his services. The claimant raised a demand notice on 29.5.2018 promptly. AR for workman further argued that the workman appeared as WW1 and proved his pleadings. The fact that no appointment letter at the time of joining the duty was given to the workman was admitted by the witness of NRI Family Lawyers.