Mr H Dev v Fidelity Consultancy Ltd: 6017810/2024
JUDGMENT
The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is not well-founded and is dismissed.REASONS
[1]The parties were informed on 25 June 2025 that no Judge had been allocated to the case and that they would be updated by midday on 26 June 2025. At 11.15am on 26 June 2025, the parties were informed that the hearing would take place at 2pm.[2]The claimant did not attend. Mr Racherla attended on behalf of the respondent. He confirmed that, in October 2023, the respondent had offered the claimant a position as Web Developer and agreed to sponsor his UK visa. Due to sponsorship requirements, the claimant was put on the payroll from 1 November 2023. However, the claimant never attended for work and did not sign the employment contract, as required by visa sponsorship guidelines. Mr Racherla has never met the claimant.[3]The respondent denies that the claimant is due any pay as he provided no services. After four months, the respondent told the claimant that his visa sponsorship was being withdrawn as he had not performed any work. Case Number: 6017810/2024[4]The claimant has not provided a schedule of loss showing what he is claiming and for what period. The agreed salary was £23,000 and he has said he is claiming £35,000 in his ET1. He has not produced any evidence to show that he was employed by the respondent or that he provided services to the respondent despite being on notice that this was the respondent’s position.[5]In addition, it appears that the claimant was informed by 3 May 2024 that the respondent was withdrawing the sponsorship visa. If that is the last day of employment on the claimant’s own case, the claim appears to have been brought out of time. The ACAS early conciliation certificate shows that ACAS was contacted on 13 September 2024, which is more than three months from the date of the last alleged non-payment of salary. The claimant has not shown why it was not reasonably practicable to present his claim before the expiry of the time limit.[6]I therefore conclude that there has been no unlawful deduction from the claimant’s wages and his claim is dismissed.[1]The representations made by the claimant regarding the late submission of the ET3 are no longer relevant because the ET3 was accepted by the tribunal.[2]The claimant confirms that he received an email on 25 June 2025 informing the parties that there was, at that time, no Judge available to hear the case but that the parties would be contacted by 12:00pm on 26 June 2025 with an update on how the case will proceed.[3]Later that day on 25 June 2025, the claimant emailed the tribunal and acknowledged receipt of the tribunal’s email, asking for any updates to be provided via email.[4]On the morning of 26 June 2025 at 11.15am, before the 12:00pm cut-off point, the tribunal notified the parties that a Judge had been located and that the hearing would start at 2pm.[5]The claimant complains of the effect of the time difference between his base in North Carolina, USA and London. He had not informed the tribunal in advance of this issue and was on notice that he would receive an update by 12:00pm. Case Number: 6017810/2024[6]The parties have been aware that a hearing had been listed for 26 June 2025 since 9 May 2025. The only change to the listing is that the hearing was moved from 10am to 2pm. Any preparation or advice required for the hearing should have been in place for a 10am hearing. The claimant also complains that he was unable to attend remotely on short notice but does not explain why. If anything, the change to the time of the hearing would have been more convenient to him in the North Carolina time zone.[7]The claimant does not address in his reconsideration request the issue of the late presentation of his claim. The respondent contends his employment ended on 29 February 2024, although the notice of termination was not sent until 20 March 2024. The claimant did not contact ACAS early conciliation until 13 September 2024. Approved by: