Case 1401371/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Singh Bassi v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401371/2024
- Decision date
- 19 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mrs K Symonds, Mr P English
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Singh Bassi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, of British Indian ethnic origin and with 24 years' service, was dismissed on 14 March 2024 and brought claims of unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, race harassment, direct perceived disability discrimination, discrimination arising from perceived disability, and victimisation. During the hearing the Respondent conceded that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed, and the Tribunal recorded that concession as appropriately made. Several other allegations (the s.15 perceived disability claim and the victimisation claims, along with a number of specific race and perceived discrimination allegations) were withdrawn during the proceedings.
On the race harassment claim, the Tribunal found that two allegations from January 2019 were well founded: the leaving of an EDL/BNP leaflet in the Claimant's locker, and the leaving of racist and bullying materials in a communal area with the Claimant's name on them suggesting he was responsible for a recent stabbing. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the perpetrator(s) were one or more of the Claimant's work colleagues for whom the Respondent was legally responsible. The remaining harassment allegations and the direct race discrimination allegations were not well founded and were dismissed. The direct perceived disability discrimination claim was likewise dismissed.
The Tribunal applied a multi-factorial just and equitable approach to extending time for the historic race harassment allegations, taking account of the length of and reasons for the delay, the Claimant's ongoing desire to return to his substantive role, the limited prejudice to the Respondent (whose own decision not to investigate at the time was identified as the principal reason for evidential gaps), and the substantial prejudice the Claimant would suffer if time were not extended. The Tribunal concluded it was just and equitable to extend time. Remedy was reserved to a separate hearing of an anticipated half-day.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Conceded by the Respondent before closing submissions; the Tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded by consent. Remedy reserved to a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct perceived disability discrimination (perceived disability of stress/anxiety/depression) not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 EqA discrimination arising from perceived disability dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Race harassment partially successful: allegations 6.2 (EDL/BNP leaflet left in Claimant's locker, c. January 2019) and 6.3 (racist/bullying materials in communal area with Claimant's name attached, c. January 2019) well founded. Time extended on just and equitable basis. Remaining harassment allegations dismissed. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claims not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 39 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
- section 33 Limitation Act 1980 checklist (as guidance)
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.