Appeal No. EAT/179/93

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 16th March 1995

	Before

	THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BUCKLEY

	MISS MADDOCKS OBE

	MR T C THOMAS CBE

MS S DEMESHGHI	APPELLANT

BANK MELLI IRAN	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

	PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR S FLETCHER
(of Counsel)
Messrs Makanda & Co.
Paul Anthony House
724 Holloway Road
London N19 3JD

	

	MR JUSTICE BUCKLEY: This is the beginning of an Appeal from a decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at North London. Whereby they dismissed the present Appellant's application that she had been unfairly dismissed.

	In accordance with the practice of this Tribunal, we have heard Mr Fletcher on behalf of the Appellant, on an ex parte basis to see whether there is a sufficient point of law to merit this Appeal going forward. 

	There is one aspect only which does to some extent concern this Tribunal, and because of it we do direct that this matter goes forward to a hearing. The sole point that concerns us, for the benefit of the next Tribunal, is the allegation made in the applicants affidavit that she was affectively prevented from giving evidence or making a submission, along the lines, that the real reason for dismissal was not the conduct as alleged by the bank, as found by the Tribunal, but was her refusal to wear a head scarf.

	It is not necessary to develop that much further at this stage. Simply to note that there had been decisions on racial and sexual discrimination, decisions which went against the Applicant, and the head scarf issue, featured in that under heading of racial discrimination, indirect discrimination.

	We have a letter from the Chairman of the Tribunal, Mrs Don it is paragraph 2 that concerns us in the light of the allegation that is made. It says simply:

		" ... I explained that the issue as to the wearing of the head scarf was not pertinent. ..."

That was at the beginning of the hearing. 

	So far as that goes, it was correct, because the issue in the sense of any further arguments on racial discrimination was no longer pertinent. That matter was over.

	But the scarf issue still had a relevance if, as appears or is suggested was the case, the Applicant wished to say that that was the reason, the true reason for dismissal. And not her conduct as alleged by the bank.

	We cannot determine that. And we say no more than it leaves us just a little uneasy and sufficiently so that we think the matter should be looked at at a hearing. 

	We therefore direct that it goes forward and we would also direct that the Tribunal, the Industrial Tribunal through Mrs Don, should be asked to expand a little further on paragraph 2 of her December 1994 letter, I cannot make out the precise date of it, but it is the only one. Also to check her notes to see whether she has a note of the incident. There clearly was an incident or an exchange on the first day of the hearing and she says in her letter:

		"2. On the first day of the hearing my notes show that I clarified the issues ..."

We would like to see the notes just on that topic to see whether, as maybe, it is simply that the wording of Mrs Don's letter does not tell the full story or do justice to her decision.