Search

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 londonsouthet@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk; ACAS – SEE (seeconciliators@acas.org.uk)

6 December 2014 at 10:30 AM

To Employment Tribunals

Montague Court

101 London Rd

West Croydon

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.

Yours sincerely

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)

To londonsouthet@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Today at 11:22 AM

To Employment Tribunals Montague Court

101 London Rd

West Croydon

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.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

(Claimant)


10 January 2015 Update: I have sent the following email to the Tribunal now:

Case Reference: 2302960/2014: me To londonsouthet@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk 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

To londonsouthet@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

8 February 2015 at 3:26 PM

To Employment Tribunals

101 London Rd

West Croydon

Surrey CR0 2RF

By Email: LondonSouthET@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Subject: Case No: 2302960/2014 For the attention of Mrs Newton, Tribunal Office.

Dear Sir/Madam,

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.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

(Claimant)

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 kashif.irfan@clearlyservice.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.

Yours sincerely

Shantanu Panigrahi

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 Tribunal with any evidence that my actions or lack of reasonable care from me resulted in the Company suffering significant financial losses. Please provide me with full details of these by return email so that I may prepare for the Tribunal accordingly.

7. For these reasons, I reject your application to the Tribunal that my claim be dismissed without a hearing. Yours sincerely Shantanu Panigrahi • 1 Attachment: The man-management of Clearly BusinessSolutionsLimited for Shell (UK) by Kashif Irfan (a).docx


5 March 2015 Update:

This morning I have sent the following email to the Tribunal:

2302960/14 Panigrahi (6) me

To londonsouthet@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

5 March 2015 at 9:04 AM

To Employment Tribunals

Montague Court

101 London Rd

West Croydon

Surrey SR0 3RF

By Email: LondonSouthET@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Case No 2302960/2014

For the attention of Mrs Newton, Tribunal Office

1. I write with reference to your letter to me dated 26 February 2015.

2. It is totally unacceptable to me that the issue of the correct Respondent(s) should not be considered before the Hearing on 27 March 2015. Unless this decision is reversed immediately by the Tribunal in light of the following prevarications that the Respondents have engaged in through the ACAS mediation process, please consider this emailed-letter to be my preliminary application of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that the correct procedures have not been followed by the Tribunal in the processing of this Case so that any decisions resulting from a Hearing should be invalidated as null and void legally by EAT.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

Show message history On Thursday, 5 March 2015, 8:23, Shan Panigrahi wrote:

To Mary Shanahan ACAS

1. Thank you for your email. I telephoned you yesterday after receiving it but you were unavailable to take the call.

2. My application to the Tribunal is against both Shell franchises on the grounds that the parent company Shell was obliged to ensure that TUPE regulations relating to my transfer of employment from Iain ‘Flash’ Gordon Enterprises were adhered to. Temple Farm owned the Shell Wigmore petrol station so it was primarily its obligation to take over my employment responsibility at this petrol station on a full time (40 hours basis). But since this petrol station stopped operating under Shell in 2010, Temple Farm was obliged to find me an alternative petrol station to work in. Further since Shell took over the Lonsdale (Wigmore) petrol station which is close by to my home, Clearly Business Solutions was obliged to restore my employment at this particular petrol station so that I do not incur travelling costs.

3. Accordingly, both Clearly Business Solutions (Respondent 1) and Temple Farm Limited (Respondent 2) are listed as having committed Breach of Contract in the Tribunal Proceedings by not giving me any work whatsoever after a period of full time employment. Further Respondent 1 was reported to the Tribunal for workplace harassment and for terminating my employment altogether.

4. If you have any further questions before these two Respondents write back to the Tribunal today, please let me know.

Yours sincerely

Shantanu Panigrahi

On Wednesday, 4 March 2015, 15:17, “LESRCover@acas.org.uk” wrote:

Dear Shan,

I have spoken to one of the Representatives in this matter who asked whether you are seeking the offer below from “Clearly Business Solutions Ltd ” or “Temple Farm Ltd”. Please can you also let me know if you have submitted a claim to the tribunal against both of these Respondents?

With kind regards,

Mary Shanahan

Duty Cover Team London,

Eastern & Southern [t] 020 7396 6621 [e] lesrcover@acas.org.uk Sign up for Acas e-newsletters: http://www.acas.org.uk/subscribe Acas National Helpline: 0300 123 11 00 http://www.acas.org.uk/helpline For full details of our training, visit: http://www.acas.org.uk/training View our full interactive brochure: http://www.acas.org.uk/trainingandsolutions >>> Shan Panigrahi 02/03/2015 18:18 >>>

Dear Mary I would like my contract of employment to state that I am entitled to receive a minimum of three shifts every week (that is, 24 hours of work guaranteed) or payment in lieu if these shifts are not forthcoming. Thanks Shan Panigrahi

On Monday, 2 March 2015, 16:51, “LESRCover@acas.org.uk” wrote:

Dear Shantanu,

I am currently covering this matter as Heather is out of the office. I have heard from the Respondent who wanted to know what you are proposing in terms of settlement in order that they can consider and see if it will be possible to resolve this matter before they have to submit their response on Thursday. Please let me know as soon as possible.

With kind regards,

Mary Mary Shanahan – Duty Cover Team Duty Cover Team London, Eastern & Southern [t] 020 7396 6621 [e] lesrcover@acas.org.uk Sign up for Acas e-newsletters: http://www.acas.org.uk/subscribe Acas National Helpline: 0300 123 11 00 http://www.acas.org.uk/helpline For full details of our training, visit: http://www.acas.org.uk/training View our full interactive brochure: http://www.acas.org.uk/trainingandsolutions

12 March 2015 Update: Following further developments I today sent the following email to the Tribunal:

Case Number: 2302960/2014 Dr S.Panigrahi v Clearly Business Solutions Limited & Temple Farm Limited (2) me

To londonsouthet@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

12 March 2015 at 2:43 PM

Employment Tribunals

Montague Court

101 London Rd

West Croydon

Surrey CR0 2RF

By Email: LondonSouthET@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Ref: Case Number 2302960/2014; Dr S. Panigrahi v Clearly Business Solutions Limited & Temple Farm Limited

For the attention of James Delermain-Neal or Mrs Cottrell-Tomlin, Tribunal Office

1. Thank you for your letter to me dated 11 March 2015, concerning ‘Amended Notice of Preliminary Hearing Case Management’.

2. I am sorry to note the Employment Judge was unable to determine the correct respondent(s) thus far and has decided that this issue must be determined at a Hearing.

3. However, as you will note from my letter to you dated 10 March 2015 sent by email at 12.24 pm, it is vital, due to the present disputation of facts on TUPE transfer, that the original Respondent (Mr Iain ‘Flash’ Gordon Enterprises) under whose employment the Case of Constructive Dismissal was brought to the Tribunal in 2008, should now be contacted by the Tribunal to provide evidence on what precisely transpired between that franchisee and Temple Farm Limited on the transfer of my employment documentation to the new owners so as to cause the breakdown of the implementation of TUPE arrangements by Respondent 2.

4. I do not know the current address of Mr Iain Gordon. I contacted him by Facebook asking him to provide his response to the revival of this Case but he did not reply.

5. I would therefore submit to the Tribunal that, on the date of 27 March 2015 for the proposed Hearing, the stipulation, ‘unless there are exceptional circumstances, no application for a postponement will be granted’ would appear to be grossly unrealistic in that nothing positive will result from the Hearing without Mr Iain Gordon’s participation in the Tribunal process.

6. Accordingly, with regard to the final purpose of the Hearing, I am open to and in favour of proceeding via the alternative route of judicial mediation instead. Yours sincerely Dr Shantanu Panigrahi (Claimant)


7 April 2015 Update: I have yet to receive an acknowledgement to the following email that I sent to the Tribunal yesterday:

RE: Case Number: 2302960/2014 Dr Shantanu Panigrahi v Shell Franchises (2)

me To londonsouthet@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

6 April 2015 at 9:21 PM

To

Employment Tribunals

Montague Court

101 London Rd

West Croydon

Surrey CR0 2RF

For the attention of S Sathiamoorthy, Tribunal Office Dear Sir/Madam

1. Further to my email to you of 2 April 2015, 11.33 am, I have now had a chance to reconsider my Tribunal Claim in light of the response of Kent Police and wish to withdraw my Claim as a consequence of considering Stipulation 3.3 of the Case Management Order and Notice of Preliminary Hearing (dated 27 March 2015, sent to parties on 1 April 2015) which states that the a Preliminary Hearing will be conducted by Employment Judge Kurrein at Ashford House on 27 April 2015 at 1400 hrs to consider whether to order the claimant to pay a deposit (not exceeding £1000) as a condition of continuing to advance any specific allegation or argument in the claim if the Tribunal considers that allegation or argument has little reasonable prospect of success.

2. The reason for my withdrawal of the claim is that according to my divorce settlement (see the following email and its attachment document, FinancialDeclarationbyDrShantanuPanigrahi.docx) I only have approximately £300 which I need for my personal daily needs and emergencies and cannot provide any of this money as the Deposit that I may be required to pay to further the following arguments at the Tribunal:

From the preliminary proceedings at the Tribunal and at ACAS, my cases against the three Shell franchises are to be treated as separate cases at the Tribunal, all three of which have been approved by the Tribunal by virtue of the fact that the Tribunal has now sent me a copy of 228 Judgement in Case No 1101675/2008/JG to meet my application to revive this Case. This is understood to have been done because Mr Iain Gordon is the person who had failed to submit my TUPE documentation to Mr Amrik Kalsi in 2008 and was therefore at fault. This is proven by the fact that Mr Gordon has now removed me as a Facebook friend without any explanation of his conduct on that previous employment. My Breach of Contract claim against Temple Farm Limited is also accordingly now being pursued separately to the case against Clearly Business Solutions Limited because both have different considerations. The Case against Clearly Business Solutions includes its decision not to settle my wages correctly; for not releasing my P45; and for the incidents of workplace harassment that was to have proceeded to a grievance hearing established by the Company but which never materialised so that the basis of legitimacy of the termination of employment at this company has been questioned. These considerations do not apply in my case against Temple Farm Limited which is simply a question of Breach of Contract on account of the fact that Temple Farm was not providing me with shifts of work as required by the verbal contract at the start of employment and failure to provide me with a written contract of employment within 8 weeks of employment. I am more concerned that my shifts at Temple Farm should be restored first before the cases against Iain Flash Gordon Enterprises and Clearly Business Solutions Limited are considered by the Tribunal. I have therefore written to Moorepay that I am dealing with your client separately to my dealings with Clearly Business Solutions Limited, and Iain ‘Flash’ Gordon Enterprises Limited and that these issues are therefore not relevant to any future discussions with your client. My records show that right up to 10 February 2015, 13.29 hours Mr Ranbir Kalsi was treating my employment with Temple Farm Limited as ongoing and not terminated by any request from either party. Mr Sathi sent me Mobile phone text message on 11 February 2015 at 10.20 am that said, ‘Sorry, I don’t have any shift’. If my employment had been terminated or I had resigned from Temple Farm at any time since starting work in September 2014, why would I be asking for shifts at this time from your client, with Mr Ranbir Kalsi asking me to contact Mr Sathi for the shifts? I have never accepted that I was on Zero hours contract that did not guarantee me 3 shifts per week from our previous discussions through ACAS.

3. Unless Judge Kurrein now reconsiders that any one of the three separate claims as proposed above have a reasonable prospect of success such that neither one requires me to pay any kind of deposit prior to the completion of the proceedings or thereafter as a fine for having brought the Claim, I regard this matter as now closed and therefore will not attend the Hearing of 27 April 2015 whether by telephone or by my physical presence at Ashford House.

4. If I do not receive a reply to this email from the Tribunal before 10 April 2015, I intend to complete my blogs of this saga by publishing this email in my website.

Yours sincerely Dr Shantanu Panigrahi (Claimant) Hide message history On Monday, 6 April 2015, 10:48, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: 6 April 2015 Dear Rashmi

1. You said yesterday and today that you had spoken to my sister about divorcing me because my conduct is becoming intolerable for you and that will see the Citizens Advice Beaurea in a month’s time if you do not see any change in me. You said that my sister, Nani (Meera) has encouraged you to take steps for a divorce. You said that I should increase my medication to 3 mg per day and that my clock checking was the reason for this situation.

2. If it will give you mental peace of mind and happiness I will not stand in your way of seeking a divorce whenever you feel it appropriate.

3. The contents of the attached Declaration that I made on Family Property and Finances still stands and I will not claim anything but the ~ £300 that I have in my Santander Account. Please show it to the Citizens Advice Bureau as soon as possible.

Wishing you all the best. Shantanu On Sunday, 23 November 2014, 18:53, Shan Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Rashmi Please see the attached declaration that I have made and take the necessary steps for possession of these assets. Thank you Shantanu

·

·

· 1 Attachment

· FinancialDeclarationbyDrShantanuPanigrahi.docx

· From

· Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

· TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

· cc Mrs Rashmi Panigrahi

·

· I write this to confirm what has been the de facto situation concerning the property and money that I can claim to be rightfully belonging to me in the interest of honesty and fairness to my wife, Mrs Rashmi Panigrahi.Since I lost my job at the University of Greenwich in October 1998, I have lived like a parasite on my wife and wasted considerable sums of money that had belonged to us and kept in our joint accounts in pursuing court cases of various kinds.

· During these years I remained largely unemployed for most of the time except for two major periods of reasonable employment in 2006-2008 and 2010-2013 when I barely earned enough to keep myself fed and clothed having been on minimum wage occupation in petrol stations. I continued to depend on my wife for all additional expenses such as holidays and the running of the family car. She spent all her money in the maintenance of the house including renovations and met the bills for all expenditures. She has done this during the past 16 years as I suffered from mental illness. She continues to support me financially today.

· Most of the family money was however kept in joint accounts by my wife for convenience and in case I suddenly needed access to money when meeting unforeseen family disasters. The house has at the above address has also been kept under joint names despite the fact that I have no right to it any longer for it would long have been disposed off had it not been for my wife’s reluctance to do so because of her love for the family home. I do not claim any part of this property as my own.

· As I now enter another period of total unemployment today, I wish to make it clear that I am almost a penniless person totally dependent on the charity of my wife who owns all our family possessions including the home and bank account monies due to the aforementioned reasons. I give my fullest consent to her to take legal possession of all family financial assets without hindrance through whatever court action she deems necessary.

· Signed: Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

· Dated: 23 November 2014

20 April 2015 Update: I telephoned the Employment Tribunal this afternoon to find out what has been decided and was informed that the Hearing of 27 April 2015 has been deleted. It appears this was due to my emails being interpreted as though I had withdrawn the Claims. 21 April 2015 Update: I have had to send the following email to all parties, including the Tribunal today:

Case 2302960/2014: Dr S. Panigrahi v R1 (Clearly Business Solutions Ltd), R2 (Temple Farm Limited), R3 (Iain Flash Gordon Enterprise) (2) Shan Panigrahi To Jonathan.Melia@moorepay.co.uk; londonsouthet@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk; kashif.irfan@clearlyservice.com; CBSL HR; shellcluster3009@btinternet.com 21 April 2015 at 10:32 AM Dear Mr Melia

1. Has Mr Stuart Morley come into work today? – if so, is he now free to attend the Telephone Hearing on 27 April 2015 at 1400 hours?

2. If not could we please agree on a new date for the relisting of this matter before 11 May 2015 because I have not withdrawn any one of my three Claims against the three Shell Franchises as Judge Kurrein seems to think?

Yours sincerely Dr Shantanu Panigrahi (Claimant)

16 June 2015 Update:

I have sent the following email to the Tribunal today:

RE: Case 2302960/2014: Dr Shantanu Panigrahi vs Clearly Business Solutions Limited; Temple Farm Limited; and Iain Flash Gordon Enterprises Ltd. (2)

From: Shan Panigrahi

To

LONDONSOUTHET

16 June 2015 at 1:25 PM

To

Employment Tribunals

Montague Court

101 London Rd

West Croydon

Surrey CR0 2RF

By Email

For the attention of Sabrina Adeyemo

Dear Sir

1. Please refer to your letter dated 12 June 2015 to me containing the following instructions: ‘Employment Judge Kurrein instructs that your request for reconsideration is refused as you withdrew your claim. There is no good reason as to why dismissal was not appropriate’.

2. I would be grateful if you would provide a full explanation of this ruling because my withdrawal of claim was conditional on the judge not accepting that I would not have to pay deposits for each of the three separate claims of mine against the three respondents. In light of this it is not clear from what you have written as to whether the word dismissal refers to the proceedings having been dismissed by the Judge or whether the dismissal word refers to the three respondents in turn being justified in terminating my employment at their Franchises. If it is the latter, this is not true for I did not receive written letters terminating my employment. And then what about my Claim for Breach of Contract in terms of unpaid wages and the unlawful nature of the contention that was passed verbally to me subsequent to my work for two of the respondents that I was working on a Zero Hours Contract without any guaranteed hours of work? As you must be aware I have only received a P45 very lately from Clearly Business Solutions Limited and not from Temple Farm Limited at all so both these companies owe me unpaid wages for the shifts that I should have been allocated over the past seven months or so. Finally, what about the loss of pay that Iain Flash Gordon Enterprises should compensate me for because it did not adhere to the TUPE requirements?