Appeal No. EAT/673/93

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 17 March 1995

	Before

	THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

	MR E HAMMOND OBE

	MR J C RAMSAY

MR P PANDYA	APPELLANT

BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

	PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	APPELLANT IN PERSON

	MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT:   The appeal in this case is against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at London North on 17 February 1993.  The Tribunal unanimously decided that having regard to the time limit in Section 68(1) of the Race Relation Act 1976 a Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint of racial discrimination.  The reasons for that decision are fully explained in the decision sent to the parties on 24 March 1993.  Mr Pandya had been employed as a clerk by British Rail from 31 October 1988 until the effective date of his dismissal on 6 January 1989.  It was not until September 1992 that it occurred to him that he might have a claim for unlawful discrimination on the grounds of race.  He presented his originating application on 7 October 1992, over 3.1/2 years after he had been dismissed.  As regards the possible claim of unfair dismissal, in that case Mr Pandya accepted and acknowledged that he did not have the necessary two years service to pursue a complaint of unfair dismissal.

	The Tribunal dealt with the question of the time limits in Section 68 and the 3.1/2 years delay in bringing the case.  The Tribunal said this in rejecting the application of Mr Pandya:

	"... He is an intelligent and articulate man who has sought the assistance whether in interview or by correspondence of many influential persons to redress the sense of grievance that he felt as a result of his dismissal.  It did not occur to him for over three and a half years that he had been the victim of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of race.  We have considered all the circumstances as described by the Applicant and also the general merits of the application.  We find that this application is out of time and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider it.  We also find that this is not a case where it be just and equitable to extend the period of three months laid down by the Act."

Mr Pandya appealed against that by Notice of Appeal served on 18 June 1993 saying that the protection of human rights had been ignored in the decision.  He did not know why he could still apply to an Industrial Tribunal regarding the dismissal from British Rail.  He complained that he had not received a reply to his letter to Sir Robert Reid.  He did not accept the reasons for terminating the employment.  He appealed that the interests of justice required a review of the case and he complained, as he has before us, that as a result of these dismissal he has been out of work for a long time.  Although he has a job at the moment, he may not get a good job.

	So far as the law is concerned, it is clear that this appeal is unarguable.  It is way out of time as the Tribunal said.  The Tribunal had a discretion as to whether it would extend time.  They were entitled to come to the conclusion, for the reasons mentioned, that it would not be just and equitable to extend the period, so as to allow Mr Pandya to bring a claim for race discrimination, years after the alleged discrimination had occurred. 

	There is no point in this case continuing to a full hearing.  We therefore dismiss the appeal.