Mr Guru Narasimha Sai Chandu Sharma Mahankali v World Shirdi Sai Baba Organisation UK (a charity) — 2022

At the remote hearing on 10 June 2022 before Employment Judge Reid, the claimant did not attend and was represented by Dr Narayanan. The respondent applied to strike out the automatic unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages and related claims, or alternatively for a deposit order. The tribunal refused strikeout of the dismissal and wages claims save for one part of the wages claim, struck out the indirect discrimination claim and the redundancy payment claim, and made a £500 deposit order on the allegation that the dismissal reason or principal reason was the assertion of a statutory right.

On unfair and wrongful dismissal, the claimant said he left for India on 27 June 2020 at the respondent's request and was dismissed by a letter dated 3 August 2020. The respondent said either that he had absconded or that he had resigned by WhatsApp on 27 June 2020. The tribunal held that these matters could not be resolved on strikeout because there were factual disputes requiring witness evidence, including whether the claimant had permission to leave the UK and what was said in the later discussions between the parties. It found that there was a reasonable prospect of showing that the employment ended by the 3 August 2020 letter, so the automatic unfair dismissal claim could proceed.

The tribunal also found that there were two written complaints before the alleged termination date, on 9 July 2020 and 24 July 2020, referring respectively to payslips and to pay not being correct and payslips not being provided. Subject to any argument about good faith, those documents could amount to assertions of statutory rights before dismissal. However, because there were also serious allegations made by S and a dispute about the claimant's departure from the UK, the tribunal considered that the allegation that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was the assertion of a statutory right was only suitable for a deposit order, not strikeout.

On unlawful deductions from wages, the tribunal held that the dispute over relocation and employment-related costs, the scope of any agreement to pay them, and whether deductions could be made from wages required evidence. It also noted a separate claim for an extra £350 per month for additional duties. The only part struck out was the claim for 6 days' pay before 1 January 2020, because the written contracts recorded 1 January 2020 as the start date and the claimant had not identified work done in that period. On the discrimination amendment, the tribunal refused the new allegation about the initial six-month family restriction, and struck out the existing marital-status indirect discrimination claim because clause 9 applied to all family members and did not satisfy the particular disadvantage requirement. The redundancy payment claim was struck out because the claimant did not say he was dismissed for redundancy and lacked the required two years' continuous employment.