Ms B Patel (nee Mistry) v Eros International Ltd (In Administration) and others: 3311005/2022

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3311005/2022
Ms B Patel (nee Mistry)ClaimantEros International Ltd (In Administration) and othersRespondent
Employment Judge BansalIn person for claimantNot represented for respondentDate 26 November 2024

JUDGMENT

[1]The Claimant was neither an “employee” or a “worker” of the Second or Third Respondent for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in the period 8 December 1997 to 30 April 2022.[2]The claims against the Second and Third Respondents are dismissed.

REASONS

[1]This claim proceeds with the consent of the administrators.[2]The administrators have indicated that they do not intend to mount any defence to these claims. Accordingly, I decided to proceed in the absence of the respondent.[3]The claimant was employed by the respondent on 8 December 1997. Case Number: 3311005/2022 2[4]By 2022 her annual salary was £57,500.[5]On 31 March 2022 the claimant was informed she was at risk of redundancy. A consultation meeting on 5 April 2022 had to be postponed due to her illness. A consultation meeting took place on 29 April 2022. The claimant was dismissed on 30 April 2022. I find that the reason for dismissal was redundancy. Redundancy is a potentially fair reason. I find that the claimant was warned and consulted albeit against a background where the respondent went into administration. I find that the dismissal was fair and consequently the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal stands to be dismissed. In any event, any statutory redundancy payment would be offset against any basic award. Statutory redundancy payment[6]The claimant was 49 years old at the time of dismissal. Her statutory redundancy payment is therefore in the sum of £13,704. Notice pay[7]The claimant was entitled to 12 weeks’ notice. Her weekly pay was £1,105.77. She is therefore entitled to £13,269.23 (subject to tax and National Insurance). The claimant is to give credit for £10,000 that has been paid to her. Holiday pay[8]The claimant has shown me her contract of employment. The claimant was entitled to 25 days holiday plus the eight statutory bank holidays. The claimant’s contract provides as follows:- “9.5 Unclaimed holiday may not be carried over from one year to another except with the written consent of the company. In any event no more than 5 days may be carried over to the next year, and days carried over must be taken by the end of March.”[9]The holiday year was from 1 April to 31 March.[10]The claimant seeks to claim holiday which she says was not taken in the holiday years 20/21 and 21/22. At the time the claimant was on furlough. The claimant could not show me that she had requested any holiday. There is no evidence of her being allowed to carry holiday over. By 30 April 2022 the claimant would only have accrued just short of three days holiday in circumstances where she had had two days bank holiday over Easter. In her final payslip the respondent has calculated holiday pay in the sum of £2,505.67. I have no idea how that has been calculated. Even if five days had been rolled over, it appears to be in excess of nine days holiday. On the basis that the respondent has calculated that figure, I am prepared to accept it as the accrued holiday entitlement due to the claimant on the termination of her employment.[11]I do not find that the claimant is entitled to any more holiday pay. I find that the claimant did not roll over any outstanding holiday from 20/21 and 21/22. Case Number: 3311005/2022 3[12]I explained to the claimant that I could make no award in respect of the rest of her claims. Legal expenses are not recoverable in tribunal proceedings. The claimant had failed to prove use of her personal mobile phone in circumstances where it would appear that she was working in breach of the furlough scheme. I cannot compensate the claimant for her shares becoming valueless. I have no power to award a loyalty payment. I have no power to award compensation for hurt feelings. I have no power to order interest.