United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 44_93_0211

Appeal No. EAT/44/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 2 November 1993

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE J BULL QC

MR A FERRY MBE

MR A D SCOTT

---

MR R ROHATGI          APPELLANT

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant IN PERSON


 


JUDGE BULL QC: This is a Preliminary Hearing of Mr Rohatgi's appeal to us against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal which sat at London South when it heard Mr Rohatgi's complaint of racial discrimination on 29 October 1992. The Full Reasons for that decision were sent to the parties on 9 November 1992.

Mr Raj Kumar Rohatgi is a very experienced and highly qualified gentleman. Not only is he a Graduate of Glasgow University but he also holds a Post Graduate Degree from Strathclyde University and has practical experience in 1988 and 1989 in his profession.

In July 1990 he made application to the Department of Transport for a post in Civil Engineering and was interviewed in August by the Civil Service Commission who recommended him for such an appointment and issued the appropriate Certificate of Qualification. The Department of Transport did not employ him.

In 1991, Mr Rohatgi again applied and was similarly unsuccessful. A further application which he made in February 1992 was also without success. Indeed he was not even granted an interview.

Mr Rohatgi complains that these rejections were racially motivated. He further says he had not only a MSc degree but also was the holder of a Master of Business Administration degree which he submits demonstrated that he had achieved far higher qualifications than other candidates who were in competition with him. He attacks the decision of the Industrial Tribunal upon a statistical basis saying that applying the theory of probability to the numbers which were considered, a far greater proportion of applicants ought to have been chosen from ethnic minorities than were in fact selected.

He further has complaints against a Mr Handley who gave evidence before the Tribunal which in summary amount to the fact that in the Appellant's submission Mr Handley was inherently biased and racially prejudiced against him. He concludes finally that the decision of the Industrial Tribunal was perverse.

The Industrial Tribunal considered all these matters in meticulous detail. It is their duty and not our duty to arrive at the facts and to decide which evidence they accept and which evidence they reject. This they did. The Industrial Tribunal specifically considered the allegations which Mr Rohatgi makes and made before them in paragraphs 18 to 22 of their decision.

There is in our view no evidence whatsoever upon which to found an argument that the decision was perverse. As Mr Rohatgi himself points out, the Industrial Tribunal did not accept his submissions and since as I have already said, it was their duty to decide the facts and not ours, the determination by the Tribunal is not open to review in the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

There is, in our unanimous view, no matter of law which is raised by this matter and we are therefore driven reluctantly, for Mr Rohatgi has made his points before us with great courtesy and much force, but we are nonetheless driven to reject his appeal for these reasons.