Case 1304251/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Badsha v -v- International Automotive Components Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304251/2024
- Decision date
- 4 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Badsha
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Perry held that Mr F Badsha did not have the qualifying service needed to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, so that complaint was dismissed. The tribunal also recorded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaints the claimant had listed in the agenda lodged before the case management hearing on 28 November 2024, and those complaints were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The judgment stated that the claimant’s complaints that he had been dismissed because he had whistleblown under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996, and that his dismissal was an act of race discrimination, would proceed to trial. It then identified the live claim as including whistleblowing detriment under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996, whistleblowing dismissal under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996, direct race discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010, indirect race discrimination under s.19 Equality Act 2010, and victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010.
The judgment ended by stating that any other complaints were dismissed. No remedy was dealt with in this decision, which resolved only the preliminary service and jurisdiction issues.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant did not have qualifying service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaints the claimant listed in the agenda lodged before the case management hearing and dismissed those complaints for want of jurisdiction; the extracted text does not identify them individually. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- qualifying service requirement
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.