[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Roy v. Khan & Anor [2001] UKEAT 910_01_1012 (10 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/910_01_1012.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 910_01_1012, [2001] UKEAT 910_1_1012

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR R ROY THE APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC:

1. Mr Rathin Roy ("the Appellant") was the employer of the two named Respondents to this Appeal. Each claimed in IT1s submitted to an Employment Tribunal on 22 December 2000, that the Appellant was in breach of contract and had made an unlawful deduction from their wages.
2. Notices of Appearance by the Appellant were lodged on 1 February 2001. There was a hearing before an Employment Tribunal sitting in Sheffield for some three hours on 21 May 2001. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that the Appellant had made unlawful deductions from the wages of both named Respondents, contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. He was ordered to pay sums to each Respondent. The Appellant appears in person before us as he did below. He has had the advantage of seeing a representative of ELAAS this morning but appears without any assistance.
3. From that decision he has appealed. Part of the grounds of appeal claim that the Tribunal showed bias and that he did not have a fair hearing below. Furthermore, the Appellant claims that he was not well at the date of the hearing.
4. We have considered the contents of an Affidavit sworn by him on 14 August 2001 (together with the Exhibits) and the Chairman's comments dated 24 August 2000. From those documents, it is apparent, whereas he might well have been feeling ill on the day of the hearing, the Appellant did not ask for an adjournment. As far as we can gather from the documents, he did not have any medical evidence to suggest he was not able to conduct his claim at the time. We have seen the statement by his Medical Practitioner, Dr Bhartia, dated 24 May 2001 stating that the Appellant had been his patient for over a year with symptoms of anxiety and "is in treatment". The statement gives no evidence as to his state of health on the hearing date.
5. We do not feel that the matters mentioned by the Appellant in the light of the Chairman's comments dated 24 August 2001 could lead to a Tribunal reaching a decision that he had an unfair hearing below and, the appeal on that ground, is therefore dismissed.
6. The Appellant also appeals because he was not allowed to counter-claim in the proceedings in regard to the behaviour of the Respondents. Paragraph 5 of the Extended Reasons deals with that point, as does the Chairman in his comments.
7. It is apparent the Appellant was well out of time when he sought to raise the counter-claim. It would be unfair on the Respondents to have allowed the introduction of such a complaint on the day of the hearing, many months after they had made their complaints. It is still, of course, open to the Appellant to start proceedings if he so wishes against the Respondents in relation to the matters which he wished to raise on a counter-claim. In our judgment, the Tribunal was entitled to refuse to allow it to be raised at the hearing.
8. The Appellant also appeals against the quantum of the award made to the Respondents. Having regard to the facts found in the Extended Reasons and the explanation of the award made to each Respondent we can see no misdirection of law by the Tribunal and this ground of appeal raises no applicable issue.
9. We consider that overall this appeal has no prospects of success if it should go to a full hearing. In the circumstances, we dismiss it at this stage.