Mr. M. W. Bari v Respondent — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing on territorial jurisdiction. Employment Judge Goodman held that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over Mr Bari's claims and dismissed them. The judge found that Mr Bari worked under a contract of employment with Alten India Private Ltd in Bangalore, was paid and taxed in India, and that his contract provided for Indian law and the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in Bangalore. The tribunal also noted that the claims against the four individual respondents were rejected because there were no early conciliation certificates in those names.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Bari worked on an SSE project connected to Alten Ltd's work in Derby and that he was supervised day to day by UK-based managers, but held that those links were not enough to displace the strong territorial pull of India. Applying Lawson v Serco, Ravat v Halliburton and British Council v Jeffrey, the judge treated Mr Bari as a true expatriate whose employment had to have an especially strong connection with Great Britain before UK employment legislation would apply. The only British connection was his contribution to a British-based project, which was not enough.

The judgment also found that Mr Bari was not employed by Alten Ltd. The tribunal said that, at most, he might have been a contract worker supplied by Alten India to work for Alten Ltd for Equality Act purposes, but no such amendment had been proposed and, in any event, the territorial jurisdiction point still failed. The tribunal noted that he had also brought proceedings in the Bangalore Labour Court and saw no reason to doubt that forum's jurisdiction. All claims were dismissed without the merits being determined.