Appeal No.	 EAT/562/99  

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 16 July 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
LORD  DAVIES OF COITY  CBE
MR P A L PARKER CBE

MRS N DESAI	APPELLANT

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	IN PERSON	

JUDGE LEVY:	This is a preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mrs Desai against the decision made by an Employment Tribunal sitting at London North on 20 October 1998.  She had complained that she was unfairly dismissed and sought an order for reinstatement and compensation.  

1	The parties dated 24 November 1999, the unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that the Appellant had been unfairly dismissed.  By a majority, the Tribunal declined to order that the Appellant be reinstated or reengaged.  The Tribunal unanimously made no order of compensation because monies paid to her by the Respondent exceeded any award it could make.  It is apparent from the extended reasons that if they could have done, the Tribunal would have made an award of further compensation because they were very sympathetic to the way the Appellant had been treated after 19 years employment with the Respondent.  They found that she had been unfairly dismissed in a redundancy exercise.  

2	However, the majority of the Tribunal found it impossible to make an order that the Appellant be reinstated or reengaged because of problems found in the department in which she worked in investigations made after her departure - difficulties for which she had perhaps not been responsible.  No finding made that she was responsible, but by inference the problems make reinstatement a practical impossibility for the Respondent.  Mrs Desai has addressed us in person very fluently this morning and is obviously distressed by what she considers to be a stain on her character.  As far as we see it, there is no stain on her character.  Furthermore, she has obtained new employment.  The decision of the majority of the Tribunal was one the Tribunal was entitled to make on the evidence before it.  It was simply not a case, in our view, where the Tribunal could properly have ordered reinstatement or reengagement in all the circumstances of the case.

3	As we have explained to Mrs Desai in the course of the hearing, appeals only go to a full hearing if there is an arguable point to go forward.  We do not think that there is an arguable point to go forward here.  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal at this stage.