Appeal No. EAT/556/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 21 October 1996

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H J BYRT QC
MR K M HACK JP
MR A C BLYGHTON

MR P PANDYA	APPELLANT

CHERUB LIMITED
	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

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

			JUDGE BYRT QC:   This is a preliminary hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Leicester on 15 April 1996, when it dismissed the Applicant’s claim for unfair dismissal, or alternatively, redundancy, on the grounds that the Applicant did not have two years continuous employment.

	The Applicant, now the Appellant, was employed by the Respondents as from 6 June 1994 in the capacity of a Quality Controller.  On 10 August 1995 he was given one month’s notice which he was not required to work and a month’s salary in lieu.  The reason given by the employers for terminating his contract was that his job had disappeared, in other words he was redundant.  The Industrial Tribunal took a preliminary point on the Appellant’s claim and on 15 April 1996 having applied Section 64 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act dismissed the claim.  

	The Appellant takes two points.  One is that Section 54 which establishes the right of all individuals not to be dismissed unfairly takes precedent over Section 64 of the Act.  We think that that is a submission which is unsustainable.  He also alleges that his employers were guilty of breach of contract.  We do not see that that case is sustainable either, in that he was given one month’s notice which was all that he was contractually entitled to, and accordingly the employers had followed the terms of the contract in dismissing him.  

	In any event, these are the conclusions of the Industrial Tribunal.  They were matters for the Tribunal to decide.  On review, our task is to ensure that they have directed themselves appropriately on matters of law.  We can see no reason to disturb their conclusions and accordingly the appeal must be dismissed.