M Aslam v. Yorkshire Rider Ltd [1992] UKEAT 452_89_1702

EAT
M Aslam v. Yorkshire Rider Ltd
[1992] UKEAT 452_89_1702 · 1992-02-17
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by Mr Aslam from a Decision of an Industrial Tribunal dated the 7th July 1989 sitting at Leeds. Mr Aslam had issued proceedings alleging unfair dismissal by his employers, Yorkshire Rider Limited, which was a bus company.The Applicant was a bus driver, he had had a good record and he had been with that Company, or its predecessor since about 1977. There was a system operated by the Company, which is operated in some other companies, and where a substantial part of the workforce are of the ethnic minorities, whereby extended periods of leave can be given so that the individuals can visit their families in the countries of origin but, as one would expect there are very strict rules about that type of leave. Mr Aslam, as the Tribunal found, was well aware of the system and necessity to comply with it strictly.In 1987 Mr Aslam was away from work for a long period, indeed about 18 months, due to an accident. Suspicions arose that he had been working elsewhere whilst on sick leave. This was investigated and as a result of what occurred a very firm warning was given to him about any future misconduct. Shortly after his return he wanted to go to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for 8 weeks leave of absence. This initially, was refused by the Area Traffic Officer, Mr Broxholme. An appeal was made to Mr Fletcher, the Area Manager, who allowed the appeal and granted Mr Aslam twenty-five days leave because Mr Aslam wanted to accompany his 80 year old mother to Saudi Arabia to visit Mecca and then back home to Pakistan.The leave was granted. Mr Aslam made the arrangements and he was due to return on the 6th August 1988 having left this country on the 3rd July; he failed to do so. The Company decided to wait and see what was happening. Ultimately, the Company Medical Officer was shown a sick note which gave as the reason for absence "Pyrexia of Unknown Origin" and this was the result of information from a Doctor in Pakistan who had advised bed rest for some four weeks. That would have ended on the 3rd September.The next thing that was heard from Mr Aslam was on the 14th September 1988, when he returned to work. He was told he was overdue and told to report to Mr Broxholme, the Traffic Manager; he reported in the presence of his Trade Union representatives, and there was an interview, followed by a disciplinary interview later. That came before Mr Fletcher and took place on the 20th. Again the Trade Union representative was present.The question of the documentation was examined and Mr Aslam told to bring any documentary evidence with him. He produced what purported to be a second medical certificate.

(k) where they say this:

"Whereas the first medical certificate had been an obvious original the 2nd was a photocopy which had many similarities to the original certificate, indeed it could have been a photocopy of the original certificate with certain alterations made or a photocopy of the original which had been altered as to dates.
Mr Fletcher was highly suspicious about this. He had reason to be suspicious of Mr Aslam in the past in respect of the matters in January of 1988 which had led to his dismissal and reinstatement, matters which Mr Aslam at all times denied. The document may have given cause for suspicion. The company also had reason to be suspicious from their enquiries of their own Medical Officer. That on top of the failure of Mr Aslam to return on time which was a clear repudiation of his contract of employment with the employer was entitled to accept or reject."The Tribunal, having examined the facts carefully, applied the British Home Stores tests. They found that there was reasonable investigation, there were reasonable grounds upon which the conclusion could be reached that he was in breach of his contract, and they found that the decision to dismiss in all the circumstances was one within the band of reasonable decisions by this employer in these circumstances.We are unable to find any error in the decision that was reached and this Appeal is dismissed.