BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Maitra v Lewis Atkins & Co [1995] UKEAT 902_93_2203 (22 March 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/902_93_2203.html Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 902_93_2203 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
I N T E R N A L
At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR T C THOMAS CBE
MR G H WRIGHT MBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
THE APPELLANT IN PERSON
JUDGE LEVY QC: After long years of service, Mr Chuni Lal Maitra's employer Lewin Atkins & Co, a firm of accountants, were found to be insolvent and sums due to Mr Maitra were not paid to him.
He sought to redress by an application to an Industrial Tribunal on grounds that he had been dismissed. There was a hearing before the Industrial Tribunal at London (North) on 9th August 1993. The Tribunal unaminously decided that the Applicant was not dismissed, but his employment ended by mutual consent. In consequence he was precluded from claiming redundancy payments. That decision was sent to the parties on 17th August 1993 and Mr Maitra requested a review of the decision based on the P45 and the date of it. That application was considered by the Chairman and for reasons which he gave on 27th September 1993, and sent to the parties on 29th September 1993. The review was refused on the grounds that it had no reasonable grounds of success. From those decisions Mr Maitra has appealed to this Tribunal.
The matter was gone into in full, both in the decision of the Industrial Tribunal and in the decision on the application for the review. It is clear that there were facts on which the Tribunal were entitled to find that Mr Maitra's employment had ended by mutual consent. In those circumstances there were no grounds for claiming he had been dismissed. In those circumstances there could be no claim for redundancy or for other relief from the Industrial Tribunal. It therefore follows that this appeal has no chance of success. Indeed it is doomed to fail In the circumstances we dismiss it at this stage.
