Appeal No.	 EAT/671/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 21 June 2000

Before
MISS RECORDER E SLADE QC
MR R N STRAKER
MR G H WRIGHT MBE

MR R K MAHESAN	APPELLANT

MR D M ARROGAH	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Preliminary Hearing  Ex-Parte
Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	The Appellant in Person

MISS RECORDER SLADE QC

1	This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Mahesan against the decision of a Tribunal at London (South) held on 7 February 2000, entered in the register on 3 March 2000.  The Tribunal decided that there had been discrimination on the grounds of race against Mr Arrogah and an award of compensation was made.  An award relating to unauthorised deductions from wages was also made.

2	Various matters are set out in written grounds of appeal, but the ground being pursued by Mr Mahesan before us today was that he wanted to have the opportunity to adduce evidence to rebut that evidence given by Mr Arrogah.  He referred to two of his ex employees who could have testified in support of him.

3	The Applicant, Mr Arrogah was employed at a Service Station operated by Mr Mahesan.  There was a request by Mr Arrogah for wages and a small amount was paid by Mr Mahesan on account of wages.  Then, after a very short time in Mr Mahesan employment, Mr Arrogah was dismissed.  The Tribunal made a careful analysis of the evidence before it and a carefully reasoned decision which concluded that there had been discrimination on grounds of race.

4	Mr Mahesan did not attend the hearing and no evidence was adduced on his behalf.  After the hearing and the outcome he applied for a review of the decision by letter of 17th March 2000.  The first ground on which he asked for a review was that as he was absent on the hearing date he was not able to present his case.  There were two other matters referred to.  The application for review was rejected.  In rejecting the application for review the Tribunal Chairman said the Respondent had notice of the hearing on 7 February 2000 which resulted in the decision.  When telephoned by the Clerk to the Tribunal at the outset of the hearing Mr Mahesan said that he had forgotten about it.  His application for an adjournment made during the telephone call was refused and he was so informed.  The case had been set down for that day and the following day.  Mr Mahesan does not dispute the fact that he had notice of the hearing on 7 February and that the facts recorded by the Tribunal in their rejection of the application for review and also recorded at paragraph 3 of their Extended Reasons, were correct.

5	Mr Mahesan can point to no error of law or perversity in the decision of the Tribunal to refuse his application for review and we can see no possible basis upon which this appeal can go forward.  

6	As to the other matters referred to in the written Notice of Appeal but not pursued orally, we consider that the Tribunal made a careful analysis of the evidence and came to conclusions which were fully open to them on the evidence.  Even if those matters in Mr Mahesan grounds of appeal had been pursued we would not have considered that they raised any points of law.  Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.