Singh v Singh

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 27 May 2004
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2004] 5 JIEC 2704
• Date: 27 May 2004
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Singh v Singh

Representation:

Claimant:

Mr. Pat O'Donoghue; The Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, 3 Beresford Place, Dublin 1

Respondent

Mr. Michael Nuding, Dennis I. Finn, Solicitors 5 Lower Hatch Street, Dublin 2

Abstract:

EAT - Employment law - Unfair dismissal - Extant work permit - Whether claimant dismissed - Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD949/2003

CLAIM OF:

Jagdarshan Singh, Migrants Rights Centre Ireland, 3 Beresford Place, Dublin 1

against

Baljit Singh, 123 Harcourt Street, Dublin 2

Under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:

Mr. T. Halpin

Members:

Mr. M. Flood

Mr. S. Nolan

heard this claim at Dublin on 4th March 2004

Facts The respondent employed the claimant. The respondent stated that the claimant was lazy and not looking after the shop and when the claimant's work permit expired the respondent informed the claimant that he did not intend to seek a renewal of the permit. However, he eventually did renew the permit. The respondent contended that after the renewal of the permit the laziness restarted and the claimant walked off the job.

Held by the Tribunal in finding that the claimant was not dismissed that as the work permit was extant until 21 June 2003 and no evidence was adduced as to the surrendering of this work permit or the application by any other party for an alternative work permit allowing the claimant to work the claimant could not sustain loss.

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows: -

1 Dismissal being in dispute it fell to the claimant to prove his case.

Claimant's Case

2 The claimant told the Tribunal that he was dismissed on 02 October 2002 when the respondent, the owner of the shop where the claimant was working, asked the claimant why he was standing there to which the claimant replied that the shop was quiet and there was no business he could do. The claimant stated that he was told to get out of the shop and get the key. The claimant stated he was then told by the respondent "I don't want to see you". The claimant then gave evidence of his hours of work and rate of pay. The claimant stated he had no contract or statement of terms and conditions and that he did not receive pay slips.

3 The claimant told the Tribunal that whilst initially he had a friendly relationship with the respondent, who is his cousin, he began to feel it was work, work, work all the time and did not like the way respondent was speaking to him. The claimant stated he was always told to work Sundays.

4 The claimant told the Tribunal he lived in a two bedroom flat with the respondent's family during the employment and he understood the accommodation to be part of the contract. The claimant then gave evidence of loss.

5 Under cross-examination the claimant denied ever having worked at an Indian restaurant in Ranelagh but stated he has commenced at an Indian restaurant in Sligo on 01 October 20003. The claimant told the Tribunal that he is a cousin of the respondent and had approached the respondent in India in 200l to ask him to work in Ireland. The claimant stated that a work permit was issued on 22 June 2001 and that he arrived in Ireland on 16 July 2001 and started work in the...