Case 4106687/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Dev Singh Negi v Representing himself Basrai Restaurant Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4106687/2020
- Decision date
- 23 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Dev Singh Negi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a procedural hearing on 19 November 2021. The tribunal extended time under Rule 20 so that the respondents' ET3, submitted on 17 November 2021, could be accepted. In deciding whether to do so, the tribunal considered the explanation for lateness, the prejudice to each side, and whether the defence had merit. The respondents said they had only recently become aware of the claim and that they were not the claimant's employer.
Mr Negi accepted that Express Buffet Limited had been his employer, and the tribunal therefore added Express Buffet Ltd as a respondent under Rule 34 so that the case could proceed against the correct party. The tribunal also noted that Mr Negi regarded Gurdeep Singh and Jagjit Singh as the owners of the company, not as his employers in an individual capacity. Basrai Restaurant Ltd was removed from the proceedings because it was accepted that this entity had not been the claimant's employer and could not be liable for wages claimed for work carried out. No substantive liability issue was decided in this judgment; the order was directed to case administration and correct party identification.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Procedural judgment only. The tribunal did not determine the substantive merits of any underlying employment claim in this decision; it extended time for the ET3, added Express Buffet Limited as a respondent, and removed Basrai Restaurant Ltd. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 20
- Rule 34
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.