United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	THE APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED
For the Respondent	THE RESPONDENT IN PERSON


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: The respondent employee, Miss Duff, was employed by the appellant company as an Assistant Designer from 28th October to 29th November 1996. She was then dismissed by the proprietor, Mr Navtam Gosai. She claimed that two company cheques given to her in respect of her wages at the end of her employment, totalling £604.70, were dishonoured, and brought proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal for unlawful deductions from her wages.

The appellant did not enter an appearance. The matter came before an Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (North) on 14th April 1997. The appellant did not attend and was not represented. The Industrial Tribunal upheld the complaint and ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent the sum of £604.70. The decision with extended reason was promulgated on 25th April 1997.

Attempts by Miss Duff to enforce the order by way of execution through the County Court failed.

Against the Industrial Tribunal decision the Company appealed on the grounds that Mr Gosai had suffered a heart attack, and that the respondent had helped herself to signed cheques which had been left in the office for other unspecified reasons.

On 10th October 1997 the President directed that the appellant file an affidavit under Paragraph 16 of the EAT Practice Direction explaining why no Notice of Appearance had been entered below, that step to be taken within seven days, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

Mr Gosai by a letter dated 17th October 1997, enclosed a 13 week medical certificate which stated that he was unfit for work due to Ischaemic Heart Disease.

The Register replied on 22nd October, indicating that the appeal was stayed until 1st January 1998 after which she expected to receive an affidavit or further sick certificate, failing which the case would be listed for disposal.

On 7th January 1998 a reminder was sent to the appellant. The case was then listed for hearing on 4th March. On 3rd March Mr Gosai faxed the EAT, applying for an adjournment and enclosing a six week medical certificate which referred to a leg wound infection. The hearing was vacated.

On 17th March the parties were notified of a further hearing date set for today. There has been no further response from the appellant which has not appeared nor is it represented today, although Miss Duff has appeared before us.

In these circumstances we have reached the conclusion that the appellant has no intention of pursuing this appeal, and indeed, is merely seeking to avoid payment of wages properly due to Miss Duff. In these circumstances, we shall dismiss this appeal.