Case 2200282/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Talukdar v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2020

Case reference: 2200282/2020
Decision date: 15 June 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Norris Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Talukdar

Respondent

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing on 20 May 2020, the Claimant said he wished to bring complaints of direct race discrimination, race-related harassment and unlawful deductions from wages. The judgment records that the claim form did not disclose harassment related to race and that the Claimant was unable to identify unwanted conduct related to race at the hearing.

The Claimant was given an Unless Order requiring him to confirm whether he pursued the harassment complaint and, if so, to identify the conduct related to race relied on from the claim form. After an extension of time, he provided a document, but the Employment Judge concluded that it disclosed no facts capable of amounting to race-related harassment and appeared instead to repeat matters relied on for direct race discrimination.

The race-related harassment complaint was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The direct race discrimination and unlawful deductions from wages complaints were not determined in this judgment and were to proceed to a hearing.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Harassment	The judgment struck out only the complaint of race-related harassment. It stated that the remaining complaints of direct race discrimination and unlawful deductions from wages would proceed to a hearing.	Struck out	Race	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.