United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


JUDGE REID QC: Mr Pandya has not appeared nor has anyone appeared on his behalf. This was to be his appeal against the dismissal of his various applications on the grounds that they were frivolous and vexatious.

1. The grounds of appeal are as follows:

"1. According to Employment Tribunals (Constitution etc) Regulations 1993, Sch.2, … Rule 13(2)(d) the application are not scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. I have not applied against all the companies of this land but have a recourse to State protection to know the real reason as to why I am not offered work by this companies.

2. The decision is scandalous as are notices of appearances as I have been provided with an order for a further and better particulars as per statutory instrument 1993/2687 Rule 4(1)(a)(b) and 3(b), copy attached."

2. Mr Pandya has not seen fit to come to tell the tribunal why there is any substance in his appeal.
3. On the face of it, the tribunal's decision was fully justified and we take the view that the appropriate course is to dismiss this appeal, as I gather from Mr Pandya's documentation, a wide variety of his other appeals both in this country and in Europe have been dismissed.