Case 3200712/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A K Tewari v Trustees of Vishwa Hindu Parishad- a registered charity — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200712/2021
- Decision date
- 17 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A K Tewari
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought claims including unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, unlawful deduction of wages and breach of statutory duty. At the preliminary hearing, the clarified issues included unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, automatic unfair dismissal under section 100 relating to health and safety, failure to pay statutory notice, holiday pay and national minimum wage issues.
The Respondent applied for strike out, or alternatively deposit orders, arguing that the unfair and wrongful dismissal claims had no reasonable prospects because the Claimant had been reinstated before the claim was issued. The Tribunal focused the application on whether the Claimant was a worker or employee, whether he had been dismissed, and whether any reinstatement was on the same terms and conditions.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant gave cogent and consistent evidence on the detail and basis of the unfair and wrongful dismissal claims. It concluded that those details were sufficient potentially to establish those claims, so they should proceed to a full merits hearing. The Tribunal made no definitive decision about time bar and ordered no deposit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | At an open preliminary hearing, the Tribunal decided that the unfair dismissal claim was not struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success and was not subject to a deposit order. The merits were listed for a later full hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | At an open preliminary hearing, the Tribunal decided that the wrongful dismissal claim was not struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success and was not subject to a deposit order. The merits were listed for a later full hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- Hack v St Christopher's Fellowship
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- Romanowska v Aspirations Care Limited
- HM Prison Service v Dolby
- Hassan v Tesco Stores
- Tayside Public Transport Co Ltd v Reilly
- Mechkarov v Citibank N A
- Hemdan v Ishmail
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (E&W) Order 1994 art 3
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Rights Act 1996
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the .
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.