Apology for my actions against Clearly Business Solutions Limited/Kashif Irfan
I hereby apologise unreservedly for the actions that I took against Clearly Business Solutions Limited and its managing director Mr Kashif Irfan. I await further instructions on what I should add to this initial blog post to issue this apology.
3 December 2014, 12.00 noon Update
The legal authorities of the United Kingdom were unable to make any decisions on this matter.
7 December 2014 Update: I have now sent the following email to the Employment Tribunal, copied to Arbitration Conciliation and Advisory Service (ACAS):
Case Number: 2302960/2014: Proceedings against Shell UK Franchises
me To firstname.lastname@example.org; ACAS – SEE (email@example.com)
6 December 2014 at 10:30 AM
To Employment Tribunals
101 London Rd
Surrey CR0 2RF
For the attention of Mrs Cottrell-Tomlin, Tribunal Office
Dear Mrs Cottrell-Tomlin
1. Thank you for your letter dated 4 December 2014 with the response of the Respondent, Clearly Business Solutions Limited. Mr Irfan has drawn the attention of the Tribunal to the following website that contain the details of my grievances against Shell as the overall employer: ( https://shantanup.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/dugdale-solicitors-silence-on-dr-shantanu-panigrahis-employment-grievance-at-temple-farm-limited-a-shell-uk-ltd-business/). I agree that this is relevant material for the consideration of the Judge.
2. Accordingly, I wish to submit that my Claim essentially involves the legitimate transfer of my original Shell Wigmore Service Station employment under Ian Flash Gordon Enterprises (2006-2008) to the new local petrol stations under TUPE arrangements. For this reason I wish to add a second Respondent to my Claim Form. This Respondent is Temple Farm Limited (Shell Bluebell Hill, A229 Northbound, Aylesford, Kent ME20 7EZ, Telephone No: 01634 661000; Fax: 01634 681666; Contact Person: Mr Rik Kalsi) – please refer to my email to you addressed to Mr Kevin Eaves of 9 October 2014 at 6.08 pm under the subject title: Mr S. Panigrahi – V- Iain Flash Gordon Enterprise – PA Ref. PA/ASH/543/08.
3. I would be most grateful if you would amend my ET form with this addendum as Respondent 2 and then obtain the response of the Respondent 2 to the allegation of Breach of Contract.
4. If for any reason this cannot be done please let me know so that I may consider an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
20 December 2014 Update:
Despite numerous email-representations that I made to ACAS and to the Employment Tribunal, I have thus far not received any judgement/ruling in writing from either of these State institutions on the answers that I sought and therefore on the legal position with regard to my applications for the nullification of this blanket apology that I had been forced to issue; for the reversal of the trashing that Mr Kashif Irfan insisted I must do of my earlier blogpost concerning this dispute; and for the restoration of my employment rights with Respondent 1 and/or Respondent 2. It seems clear to me that the State authorities have been content, if not been keen, to allow this apology to be the final word on the matter. If this is true it disgusts me for that would amount to a form of censorship without the due process of the law taking place to determine its validity. It also raises the question of whether these institutions have been established solely to provide the façade of respectability to the British State which uses them to govern and administer the law not by a process that displays the play of the humanity of natural justice but by a dictation that precludes correspondence with the citizen in order to protect the State’s interests. I followed the path of issuing an apology first and then applying for its legal nullification because this was the safer way to proceed than trying to defend a case that might have been taken out against me by Mr Kashif Irfan/Clearly Business Solutions Limited for defamation for one does not know what would happen when one comes up in front of a British Judge who does not have a written State Constitution or a Bill of Rights to watch out for before making any court decisions.
6 January 2015 Update: I have just sent the following email to the Tribunal:
Hearing Fee in Case No 2302960/2014 (2)
Today at 11:22 AM
To Employment Tribunals Montague Court
101 London Rd
Surrey CR0 2RF
By email: LondonSouthet@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
1. I write with reference to the letter that I have just received from HM Courts & Tribunal Service, on the subject ‘Notice to pay a fee’ which asks me to pay £230 for a Hearing in Case No 2302960/2014.
2. I beg to state that it is premature for the Tribunal to demand a Court Fee until after the Tribunal and I have received the full written responses of the respondents to my Application. In this regard, I am still waiting for the reply of: (a) Respondent 1 (Clearly Business Solutions Limited) to my 16 December 2014 letter that you have in your file which points out the errors and distortions in their earlier submission, with particular regard to point 6 that I need to prepare for the Tribunal process and any Hearing that might eventually take place; and (b) Respondent 2 (Temple Farm Limited) to my 27 September 2014-dated document that explains the nature of my grievances against it in full.
3. In the absence of any one of these written responses I would require Judge Kurrein to pass judgement in my favour and order the Respondents to restore my full time occupation with Shell, preferably in the Lonsdale site as stated in point 5 of my 16 December 2014 letter referred to above.
4. I would also request Judge Kurrein, in light of the lack of full written response of the two respondents to date, to immediately order both these parties to pay me back the £160 Tribunal Fee that I have already paid and to meet the cost of any Hearing that might take place in due course. This Order should also compel the two respondents to pay me all my lost wages since I last worked for the two respondents (to be divided 50:50 between them) with the payments to continue until I get shifts of work from them.
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
10 January 2015 Update: I have sent the following email to the Tribunal now:
Case Reference: 2302960/2014: me To firstname.lastname@example.org 10 January 2015 at 12:06 PM To Employment Tribunals Montague Court 101 London Rd West Croydon CR0 2RF By email: LondonSouthet@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk Re: Case: 2302960/2014
For the attention of Mrs R Newton, Tribunal Office
1. Thank you for your letter dated 9 January 2015, under the title ‘Acknowledgment of Correspondence’ stating that my letter of 6 January 2015 has been placed on file, and that I should make my application for a second Respondent at the Hearing itself. I also understand from this letter that Judge Kurrein has not made the order that I requested in paragraph 4 of my letter of 6 January 2015.
2. The date of the Hearing must be arranged after I have received the full written response from Respondent 1 to my 16 December 2014-dated letter as stated in my letter of 6 January 2015. This is appropriate because of the errors and distortions outlined in my 16 December 2014 letter that I need factual information on from Respondent 1 without which I am unable to prepare for the Tribunal. This is especially important because Respondent 1 has made an unspecified accusation of my having caused financial losses to the company during my work that is implied to be due to lack of sufficient care and attention in my work for the company. This was a most serious matter that must be addressed by Respondent 1 now or I will be clearly disadvantaged at the Hearing thus prejudicing the Case against me unfairly.
3. Therefore, with regard to your second letter dated 9 January 2015 that I also received this morning under ‘Subject: Unless notice – non-payment of fee’, pending the arrival of the reply from Respondent 1 as stated in paragraph 2 above, I am unable to agree to the payment of any Hearing fee at this stage as this is clearly premature and would be a waste of my money in the circumstances as I read it.
4. I look forward to your further communication concerning this Case as soon as possible. Yours sincerely Dr Shantanu Panigrahi (Claimant)
8 February 2015 Update: I have sent the following email to the Tribunal:
RE: Outcome of Case No 2302960 (2) me
8 February 2015 at 3:26 PM
To Employment Tribunals
101 London Rd
Surrey CR0 2RF
By Email: LondonSouthET@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Case No: 2302960/2014 For the attention of Mrs Newton, Tribunal Office.
1. Thank you for the telephone call to me on 4 February 2015 at around 12.30 informing me that this Case has been postponed.
2. Please do not delay it for even one additional day because we ran into an overdraft at the end of last month waiting for my job at Shell to be restored. Thank you for your kind consideration.
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
20 February 2015 Update:
I restored my original blogpost today (https://shantanup.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/the-man-management-of-clearly-business-solutions-limited-for-shell-uk-by-mr-kashif-irfan/) when Mr Kashif Irfan and Clearly Business Solutions Limited failed to acknowledge my email as follows:
Fw: Your official Response to the Tribunal to Case No 2302960/2014 me
To email@example.com ; CBSL HR 20 February 2015 at 4:09 PM
To Clearly Business Solutions Limited
Dear Mr Kashif Irfan
1. I have yet to receive your full written response to the following letter and I am still waiting for my P45.
2. Please note that if I do not receive your written response to this email within 24 hours, I will in the first instance restore my entire blog that you had asked me to withdraw (precisely as shown in the attached document: The man-management of Clearly Business Solutions Limited for Shell UK by Mr Kashif Irfan) and subsequently incorporate within the blog all the other correspondence that has taken place on this matter between the various parties. A full book will also be written in due course to publicise the matter.
On Tuesday, 16 December 2014, 12:10, Shan Panigrahi wrote:
To Mr Kashif Irfan Clearly Business Solution Limited Dear Mr Irfan
1. I wish to draw your attention to the following errors and distortions in the submission of your defence to the Tribunal dated 3 December 2014.
2. You are wrong in stating that my employment started on 13 October 2014. My records indicate that I had worked a full shift of work on Saturday 11 October 2014 which presumably you have not paid me for.
3. You are wrong in stating that I had resigned my employment. The offer of resignation was made on the basis that the Company was not facilitating the consideration of my grievances of (a) your flippant remark that I was not able to do my job effectively with regard to multi-tasking of the bakery and Till at Detling Hill (please recall that you later insisted that I should continue to work at the Detling Hill Site if required by my line manager at any time) and (b) for publicising through my blogpost what I considered to be misdemeanours and harassment perpetrated against me by you and Sarah. When the Company assured me that a Grievance Hearing chaired by an impartial and knowledgeable external Chairperson to assess these matters would be convened, I withdrew my conditional resignation. I therefore consider that I am still employed by the Company, and this will continue until this dispute is resolved either through ACAS conciliation or through the decision of the Tribunal.
4.The first time you mentioned that I the Company was not obliged to give me any shifts of work was on 15 November 2014 though an email when you knew that I was taking legal action at the Tribunal to get myself reinstated and paid for my job. Thus placing me on Zero Hours Contract from this date was a tactical move from you to cover up your intention of not giving me any more work because I had complained of the ill treatment by your firm. Thus this conversion of my contract to Zero Hours Contract is totally unacceptable to me.
5. Since Shell is the parent company that is obliged to employ me under TUPE terms (following my 2006-2008 employment at Shell Wigmore Service Station) at a petrol station closest to my home in Wigmore that is within walking distance, I have repeatedly asked you, since January 2014, to provide me with shifts at the Lonsdale Site as my legitimate employment right. Please note this with particular regard to the Tribunal proceedings concerning Respondent 2 (Temple Farm Limited). My preference is to be working at the Lonsdale Site permanently until my retirement. 6. You have still not furnished me or the Tr