Case 1305487/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Srivastava v Onward Technologies Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1305487/2018
- Decision date
- 15 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Meichen
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr MJ Bell, Miss LS Clark
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Srivastava
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting in Birmingham on 10, 11 and 14 October 2019 before Employment Judge Meichen with Mr MJ Bell and Miss LS Clark, found unanimously that Mr S Srivastava resigned with effect from 1 November 2018 and was not dismissed. That finding was the foundation for the outcome of the case.
On that basis, the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim, pleaded as an express dismissal, constructive dismissal, and automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996, was held not well founded and dismissed. The tribunal also dismissed the claim for notice pay, as well as the claim for failure to provide a statement of reasons for dismissal.
The respondent’s application for costs was refused. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was pleaded on the basis of an express dismissal, constructive dismissal, and automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found the claimant resigned with effect from 1 November 2018 and was not dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay dismissed because the tribunal found there had been no dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide a statement of reasons for dismissal dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant resigned and was not dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.