Appeal No.	 EAT/640/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 19 November 1997

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR R H PHIPPS
MRS P TURNER OBE

MR R SAVAR	APPELLANT

(1) MS McANDIE (2) CHILTERN LODGE RESIDENTIAL HOMES LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT	

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:     This is an appeal by the first respondent before the Bedford Industrial Tribunal, Mr Savar, against a decision of a Chairman, Mr P Willins sitting alone on 19th February 1997, whereby he awarded a sum of £892.94 to the applicant, Mrs McAndie on her complaint of unlawful deduction from her wages together with an order for £90 costs in her favour. The second respondent named in the Originating Application, Chiltern Lodge Residential Home also failed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal as did the appellant.

	The applicant was employed as Deputy Matron at the Chiltern Lodge Residential Home between February 1996 and 28th August 1996. Before the tribunal Chairman she contended that she was employed by Mr Savar himself and not by a limited company which in correspondence he had contended was her true employer. On the evidence before him, the Chairman accepted that case and made the order against Mr Savar personally.

	Against that decision Mr Savar now appeals.

	We have considered the written submission which he has put before us. He has not attended this appeal hearing either. He contends that the applicant was employed by the limited company not by him personally; that he has been wrongly subjected to Industrial Tribunal proceedings by the applicant. It is all a terrible mistake.

	Unfortunately he misunderstands the jurisdiction of this appeal tribunal. We do not have a general power of review of Industrial Tribunal decisions, we can only interfere where an error of law is shown.

	What the appellant seeks to do is to reargue the factual question as to who was the applicant’s employer. The time to raise that evidential point was in front of the Industrial Tribunal. He chose not to attend the hearing, although he knew that he was a named respondent. The Industrial Tribunal Chairman accepted the applicant’s evidence, there being none to contradict it, that she was employed by Mr Savar. We cannot see any grounds for upsetting that finding of fact. Accordingly we shall dismiss this appeal.