STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Lexico Offshore Pvt. Ltd is a LPO operating out of its facility in Jaipur owing to the
contributions of the project management team got its turnover multiplied in the past years
under the supervision of the Company’s Document Review Department.

 This overwhelming success and unprecedented revenues of the company are a result of
the tireless work of the team comprising of Prakash, Ajit and Sunaina. And this hard work
could be very well seen in the Statistics of the company by reducing the effectiveness of
the junior management and involvement of the senior associate bands of the project
execution to share the responsibilities equally.

 From April 2018, the Board Of Directors through a formal authority communicated the
project management team about the acknowledgement of the extra work done by them
which are beyond the terms of contract and outlined terms of employement and also an
allowance of Extra Bonus Payments and above the normal payment rates in lieu of their
working beyond the time contracted for at the end of financial.

 Further the team consisting of Prakash, Ajit and Sunaina also asked to consider not only
the project management but also the efforts in execution for computing the bonus at extra
rates than normal. And somehow after a formal meeting between the project management
team and the board of directors the team conveyed the same to the company directors
and the latter agrred to the terms proposed by the former and asked them to continue
working with the same performance levels.

 However, the disputes arose when even after a quarter of a successful 40% increase in
earnings as compared with the earnings of the last quarter no additional bonus as
promised by the board of directors was given to the team and the Company on being
reminded of their commitment invoked the clauses (10 & 11) of employement contract
which stated the “Designated Responsibilities”

 The project management team in furtherance of this filed a suit before the District and
Sessions Court, Jaipur Metropolitan, claiming the validity of promise given by the board
of directors as a sufficient consideration of promise and the change in the employment
conditions, as opposed to the normal course of business as the clause 11 states.
Defendant – Mansi Pipal (1794), Nivedita Sharma (1800), Porika Gowthami (1804)