[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Singh v. The Post Office [2001] UKEAT 1244_00_1903 (19 March 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1244_00_1903.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 1244_00_1903, [2001] UKEAT 1244__1903

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR S SINGH (the Appellant in person)


 


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOOPER

1. This is an appeal from the unanimous decision of the Employment Tribunal held at Birmingham on 7 July 2000. The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the Appellant's complaint that he was unfairly dismissed or that the Respondent had made unlawful deductions from his wages.
2. The Appellant worked as a Postman from 31 May 1995 until 17 January 1998. His IT1 is dated 27 January 2000. It was therefore 1 x years out of time. The IT1 makes some reference to the delay (page 16 of the bundle):

"When I received dismissal letter from employer then I had a solicitor. Solicitor send a letter but unfortunately did not received reply then he posted other letter and still not successful no received answer until now."

3. The Appellant appeared in person before the Tribunal to convince the Tribunal that it should extend the 3 month period by virtue of Section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act. The Tribunal may extend the period:

"Where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of that period of 3 months".

4. Mr Singh, the Appellant, put before the Tribunal, a number of reasons why the period should have been extended in his favour. He explained that he had been suffering from heart pain soon after his dismissal. According to the Tribunal it was on about 12 May 1998 when he returned to good health. The Appellant tells us today that he was a little bit better in May. Thereafter there was sadly a catalogue of disasters. He lost his house, there was an accident, he had a burglary. He also tells us that he did not know about claiming for unfair dismissal. That is contradicted, as the Tribunal pointed out in paragraph 18, by the fact that he is a person of normal ability who has been a member of the work force and that he had discussed his complaints with a solicitor. Indeed, in paragraph 16 of the extended reasons, the Tribunal found that the Appellant knew that it was possible to obtain legal redress in respect of his complaints and knew that he could obtain and found that he had obtained advice with regard to the complaints.
5. The Tribunal reached the conclusion that the Appellant's illness did not prevent him from seeking advice with regard to his complaints nor from giving his solicitor instructions with regard to them. The Tribunal concluded that it would have been reasonably practicable to present the originating application within the relevant 3 month period. The Tribunal went on to consider what would have been the position if one took into account the illness. The Tribunal then stated that the illness came to an end on 12 May 1998 and:

"No reason has been shown for not presenting the complaint to the Tribunal from that time until 27 January 2000."

The Tribunal thus looked at the matter as if there was a good reason why the originating application had not been presented before 12 May. Even on that assumption, the Tribunal found against the Appellant. There was no doubt that after that date that he was fit and able to present the complaint, that he did not do so. Thus, as the Tribunal found, it did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

6. In our unanimous judgement there is nothing arguably wrong with the decision reached by the Tribunal. Indeed it was inevitable that the Tribunal would have come to the decision it did and in those circumstances this appeal is dismissed.