Case 6013600/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Rashid Bashir v GH Pizzas Ltd and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013600/2024
- Decision date
- 24 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr Rashid Bashir
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant's October 2024 interim relief application was not properly before it because he was still employed at that time. It found that the second application, made on 19 November 2024, was presented outside the strict seven-day period following the effective date of termination, which the Tribunal determined was 11 November 2024 when the dismissal email was sent and reasonably accessible.
In the alternative, the Tribunal considered the merits of the interim relief application and was not satisfied that a final hearing was likely to find that alleged protected disclosures were the reason or principal reason for dismissal. The Tribunal referred to the dismissal letter citing gross misconduct and found insufficient evidence that any alleged protected disclosures materially influenced the dismissal decision.
The claimant's oral reconsideration application was refused. The Tribunal held that there was no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked and that the strict statutory time limit could not be extended on fairness, health, or reliance grounds.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment concerned an application for interim relief in relation to alleged unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A ERA 1996. The second application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time; the Tribunal also concluded in the alternative that the statutory merits test for interim relief was not met. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 128 ERA 1996
- section 129 ERA 1996
- section 43B ERA 1996
- section 103A ERA 1996
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd
- Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41
- Astle v Travis Perkins UKEAT/0097/19
- Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester
- Rule 70(2) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.