Appeal No. EAT/301/93
	I N T E R N A L

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 5 October 1994

	Before

	THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

	MISS J W COLLERSON

	MR P DAWSON OBE

MR A JARVIS	APPELLANT
T/A SKELTON BUILDERS

MR J DORAN	RESPONDENT

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY
OR REPRESENTATION  ON BEHALF OF THE 
APPELLANT

For the Respondent	NO APPEARANCE BY
OR REPRESENTATION 
ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT

	MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT):   This is an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Leeds on 10 December 1992.  For reasons notified to the parties on 15 December 1992 the Tribunal unanimously decided that the applicant Mr Doran was entitled to a redundancy payment of £720 and holiday pay of £181.71.

	In the full reasons the Tribunal identified the dispute between the parties as to the date on which Mr Doran began his employment with the respondent, Mr A. Jarvis trading as Skelton Builders.  The Tribunal resolved that dispute in favour of Mr Doran.  There was also a dispute as to when the employment ended.  The Tribunal resolved that in the favour of Mr Doran.

	The respondent was dissatisfied with that decision and appealed, by Notice of Appeal dated 18 January 1993.  The ground of the appeal was that Mr Doran had completely misinformed the Tribunal, knowingly and falsely, about the dates.  He persuaded the Tribunal to accept them as the correct dates.  Various documents were produced by Skelton Builders to reinforce their allegation against Mr Doran.  

	Mr Doran informed the Tribunal that he wished to withdraw his appeal.  It was pointed out to him by the Tribunal that it was not his appeal to withdraw.  The appeal was by his former employers.

	The matter proceeded to the Listing for today.  Neither side has appeared or been represented.  The Tribunal has not been informed of any agreement reached between the 

parties.  The position is that, as the appellant has not attended to pursue the appeal, it is dismissed for want of prosecution.

	We therefore dismiss the appeal.