Case 3201195/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Rasiah v Governance officer of TSS Limited and 1 other — 2024

Case reference: 3201195/2024
Decision date: 10 December 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Gordon Walker

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr M Rasiah

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal dismissed the claim against the first respondent after the claimant withdrew it. The dismissal was recorded pursuant to rule 52 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.

The claim against the second respondent was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that the claimant had not been employed by the second respondent for two years as required by section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996, and that the claim had not been presented within the time limits in section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996.

No remedy was awarded.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This 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	The claim against the first respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant pursuant to rule 52 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.	Withdrawn	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The claim against the second respondent was dismissed because the Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction: the claimant had not been employed by the second respondent for two years as required by section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 and had not presented the claim within the time limits in section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.