Mr Gurdial Singh v Singh Sabha London East — 2023

The tribunal held that Mr Singh was an employee of Singh Sabha London East, not an independent contractor, for the period he worked as head Granthi. It found he had to attend seven days a week, could not work for other temples, provided his own labour personally, and worked under the respondent’s control as to where and when the work was done. He was paid a fixed monthly wage of £390, plus programme fees and cash donations that were shared between the priests, and the respondent provided the instruments needed for his duties.

On the termination issue, the tribunal found that Mr Singh did not resign. After a dispute on 2 July 2021 involving another priest and a caretaker, he demanded that the caretaker be removed and continued pressing that demand over the next two days. The respondent then told him not to return to the temple, and the tribunal held that this was an unequivocal dismissal.

The tribunal accepted that the dismissal was for conduct and that the executive committee genuinely believed misconduct had occurred, but it found a wholesale failure to carry out any fair procedure. The respondent did not comply with its constitutional disciplinary process, did not investigate the matter properly, did not give the claimant proper notice of the allegations, and did not consider a sanction short of dismissal. The tribunal also held that the claimant had been entitled to accrued untaken holiday pay and that the monthly wage alone could not meet the national minimum wage by reference to the hours worked.

Despite those substantive findings, the tribunal concluded that both parties had deliberately proceeded on a self-employed basis while knowing that tax and national insurance were not being handled properly. It found that the claimant knew from the outset that no tax or national insurance was being deducted from his temple income, and that the respondent had turned a blind eye to the issue. Applying Patel v Mirza, the tribunal held that the contract had been performed illegally, that the illegality was serious and central to the relationship, and that dismissing all claims was a proportionate response. All claims were therefore dismissed and the remedy hearing was vacated.