Case 3202501/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Tawar v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202501/2020
- Decision date
- 10 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taylor Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Tawar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing held in private by telephone, the Tribunal considered time limit and jurisdiction issues in Mr Tawar's claims against Tesco Stores Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the primary time limit in section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended by the early conciliation provisions. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within that time limit, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it and dismissed the claim.
The Tribunal reached the same conclusion on the unlawful deduction of wages claim under section 23(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended by the early conciliation provisions. It found that the claim was out of time, that timely presentation was reasonably practicable, and dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed because it was presented outside the primary time limit and the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was dismissed because it was presented outside the primary time limit and the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.
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.