Case 3321198/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Padmanabhan First v Second Respondent: Euro Garages Limited Greggs plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 3321198/2021
- Decision date
- 28 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Padmanabhan First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary jurisdiction decision heard at Norwich via CVP on 1 March 2023 before Employment Judge Anderson. The Tribunal considered only whether the Claimant's pleaded claims had been presented in time.
The Tribunal held that the claims of unfair dismissal, automatically unfair dismissal, failure to pay notice pay, failure to pay holiday pay, whistleblowing detriment and direct age discrimination had all been submitted outside the primary time limit. On that basis, it decided that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims.
Accordingly, the claims were struck out against both Respondents. No remedy was awarded because the case was disposed of on limitation and jurisdiction grounds.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held that the claim of unfair dismissal was submitted outside the primary time limit and struck it out against both Respondents. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment also referred to automatically unfair dismissal; that claim was held to be out of time and struck out against both Respondents. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Claimant's claim for failure to pay notice pay was held to be outside the primary time limit and struck out against both Respondents. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The Claimant's claim for failure to pay holiday pay was held to be outside the primary time limit and struck out against both Respondents. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The Claimant's whistleblowing detriment claim was held to be outside the primary time limit and struck out against both Respondents. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The direct age discrimination claim was held to be outside the primary time limit and struck out against both Respondents. | Struck out | Age | — |
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.