Appeal No. PA/486/90

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	4 ST. JAMES'S SQUARE, LONDON, SW1 4JU

		At the Tribunal
		On 9 July 1991

	Before

	THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)

	(As in Chambers)

MR V GOVA	APPELLANT

CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE SOCIETY LTD	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR GOVA
(Father)

For the Respondents	MRS A WARBY
Senior Regional
Personnel Officer
Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd
South East Retail Group Regional Office
328 Wrythe Lane
Carshalton
Surrey SM5 1AD

	MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT):  This is an Interlocutory Appeal from Decisions of the learned Registrar of this Court refusing an extension of time for Notice of Appeal.

	The proposed Appellant, Mr Gova, has been represented by his Father, who has explained the whole matter to me.  I am considering the exercise of a discretion by the learned Registrar but I have allowed Mr Gova to explain the whole background to the problems before the Industrial Tribunal.

	Mr Gova's son was employed at the Rose Hill Branch of the Co-operative Society but was dismissed on the 26th November 1988.  Thereafter there was an intervention by a Trade Union and discussions with management;  he was given some employment at the Stonecot Hill Branch, which is a different Branch, but he resigned from there by a letter of resignation of 11th July 1989.  Nothing further was done so far as the procedures were concerned until a letter was written and an Originating Application filed on 16th February 1990;  that claimed some wages.

	The matter came before an Industrial Tribunal at London (South) under the Chairmanship of Mr D J Walker on the 3rd August 1990.  The Applicant did not arrive at the beginning of the Hearing, he telephoned just after mid-day saying that his Mother had died and he was too upset to attend.  The Tribunal looked at this matter from every possible point of view, with the assistance of representatives from the Respondents, and they reached a conclusion which is stated in their unanimous Decision in five sub-paragraphs;  one, that any Originating Application was presented outside the relevant time limits;  secondly, that the Applicant had not been employed for the qualifying period of two years;  thirdly, that he had not been dismissed but had resigned;  fourthly, that there was no evidence that he was entitled to the money claim that he was making;  and fifthly that the application was frivolous and there was an award against him in the sum of £100 in costs.

	The Decision is promulgated on 16th August 1990, the Notice of Appeal was dated the 19th October 1990, as a result of which the learned Registrar wrote saying that it was "out of time" and asking the proposed Appellant whether or not there was to be an application for extension of time.  She extended the time within which that application for an extension of time could be made.  It was made, and she decided against extending time.  There was an application for a review of her decision but she looked at the matter afresh and decided to maintain her earlier Order refusing an extension of time.  There were no good grounds whatsoever for extension.

	The original Hearing before the Industrial Tribunal was also subject to review.  The learned Chairman asked for comments from the Applicant, considered them carefully and gave a careful considered decision dealing with each of the points therein.

	As far as I can observe here there is no error that could possibly be argued.  The matter was dealt with on the merits and it is extremely unlikely that any Appeal would be successful.  However I merely take that into account in considering whether the learned Registrar erred in any way in the exercise of her discretion.  I am quite unable to find any error there indeed her decision was abundantly well founded and this Appeal therefore will be dismissed.