Appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal: Dr Shantanu Panigrahi vs The University of Greenwich
Shantanu Panigrahi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thu, 29 Jun at 10:42
Employment Appeal Tribunal
1. Please find attached the EAT Form with as much of the details that I currently have: EAT Form 1 2013 word doc(University of Greenwich).docx
2. Should the Employment Appeal Tribunal require further information I ready to provide these.
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
3 Hoath Lane
Kent ME8 0SL
EAT Form 1.doc 2013 word doc(UniversityofGreenwich).docx 18.7kB:
Notice of Appeal from Decision of Employment Tribunal
1 The appellant is (name and address of appellant).
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
2 Any communication relating to this appeal may be sent to the appellant at (appellant’s address for service, including telephone number if any).
3 Hoath Lane
Kent ME8 0SL
3 The appellant appeals from (here give particulars of the judgment, decision or order of the employment tribunal from which the appeal is brought including the location of the employment tribunal and the date).
Ashford Tribunal Centre, South London Employment Tribunal
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal was not to uphold the Claim for Unfair Dismissal
4 The parties to the proceedings before the employment tribunal, other than the appellant, were (names and addresses of other parties to the proceedings resulting in judgment, decision or order appealed from).
The University of Greenwich, Natural Resources Institute, Chatham Maritime, Kent, ME4 4 TB
5 Copies of—
the written record of the employment tribunal’s judgment, decision or order and the written reasons of the employment tribunal; Not Available
the claim (ET1); Not Availaboe
the response (ET3); and/or (where relevant) As shown below
an explanation as to why any of these documents are not included;
are attached to this notice.
6 If the appellant has made an application to the employment tribunal for a review of its judgment or decision, copies of—
the review application;
the written reasons of the employment tribunal in respect of that review application; and/or
a statement by or on behalf of the appellant, if such be the case, that a judgment is awaited;
are attached to this Notice. If any of these documents exist but cannot be included, then a written explanation must be given.
7 The grounds upon which this appeal is brought are that the employment tribunal erred in law in that (here set out in paragraphs the various grounds of appeal).
On 3 July 1999 I submitted the following Application Form to the Ashford Employment Tribunal Service EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS SERVICE, Tufton House, Tufton Street, Ashford, Kent TN23 1RJ, for (a) RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND WORKPLACE HARASSMENT, and (b)
UNFAIR DISMISSAL; and citing under Dates of employment: August 1979 to ? 1999, that the effective termination of employment date was a matter in dispute; and seeking reinstatement which included compensation. The following particulars of claim were submitted.
Racial discrimination and workplace harassment
Staff of the University engaged in systematic harassment on me over a period of one and half years leading up to 24 April 1998. From September 1997, this harassment took place almost on a weekly basis, the objective being seemingly to demoralise me and to destroy my international reputation. When these failed, staff engaged in provocation to get me to respond in such a manner that could then be construed as constituting misconduct. The
incidents on which I was tormented were numerous and ranged from blatant racial discrimination in the allocation of research funds and overseas work; plagiarism of my research ideas; attack on my character with accusation of false pretences; attempts to force me into accepting blame for project financial irregularities for which another organisation was responsible; holding a ‘dummy’ disciplinary hearing the purpose being, seemingly, to ‘cover up’ previous issues constituting harassment; playing mischief with my mail (particularly electronic mail) and my annual leave sheet. The most important of the incidents perpetrated and which are the subject of criminal investigations, was a car attack incident on me (my solicitors appointed by the insurance company to investigate this incident and then act on my behalf in court as regards my Uninsured Losses have informed
me that court proceedings of some nature is to take place); and my Credit Card details being passed on to another organisation which then siphoned funds from my Bank
Account in order to provoke and harass me (the full circumstances of this are being investigated by banking system).
In the absence of any legitimate grounds for dismissing me, a few of the incidents of workplace harassment on me were then themselves converted into issues packaged as comprising alleged ‘misconduct’ on my part for disciplinary hearings that were being arranged. I was unfairly suspended from work on 24 April 1998; unfairly because the sole objective of my suspension was to prevent me obtaining the evidence that I would need to defend myself on these issues by interviewing relevant staff and obtaining appropriate documents. The disciplinary hearings themselves were conducted in my absence on certificated sick leave (my GP provided statements and Med 3 Certificates that were submitted to the University as proof) and my salary was also stopped unfairly to put further pressure on me and my family into abandoning my attempts to seek justice by collecting all the evidence which I was gradually beginning to accumulate. In addition to not allowing me a reasonable opportunity to defend myself against the allegations of misconduct by my appearance in person before the disciplinary hearings, even a Defence Document which I had managed to prepare at home while sick and submitted to the University was not permitted to be considered by the Disciplinary Hearing Appeal Panel, as 26 is evident from the letter dated 19 March 1999 sent to me by the Vice-Chancellor, Professor D. Fussey in response to the queries raised in my letter dated 15 March 1999. Thus, in effect the University refused my suggestion in October 1998 to seek the assistance of the Arbitration Conciliation and Advisory Service to settle this dispute. Professor Fussey further wrote that there was no point in continuing correspondence with the University concerning this dispute whilst at the same time refusing ‘point-blank’ to answer the central question that I had requested the University to clarify, namely whether I had been permitted at any stage to prepare for and participate in a Scientific Symposium to which I was invited as a very important guest speaker whilst I remained suspended from work. Since it was becoming increasingly clear that University staff may have been in direct contact with the Symposium organisers concerning this matter, I found myself with no option but to wait until this Symposium was over (on 24 June 1999) before I could be certain of all the evidence that I needed in order to present my case to the Industrial Tribunal for Unfair Dismissal and a systematic campaign of harassment and attempts to ‘blacken’ my name in order to tarnish my international reputation.
The Employment Tribunal arranged a Hearing which I did not attend for the stated reason that I could not find my way to the Tribunal offices but the real reason was that the Tribunal had failed to force the WPSA-UK scientists to give evidence to the Hearing.Instead the Tribunal ruled that my case could not be considered as it was submitted out of time for both Unfair Dismissal and Racial Discrimination. I appealed this decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal Audit House, 58 Victoria Embankment, London EC4Y 0DS. It refused to consider the matter. I then appealed to the Civil Appeals Office (Court of Appeal) at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL, which too did not wish to consider the matter. I took the Courts Leave to take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights.
Appeal to the Employment Tribunal with fresh evidence that warrants EAT to consider the Appeal at EAT
South London Employment Tribunal
My primary reason for having copied you into this email is that I hold some grudge against three institutions, most notably the University of Greenwich that dismissed me unfairly in 1998 October, Shell in 2009 and Sainsburys later that were brought to the Employment Tribunal. The Case was filed at the Tribunal in June 1999.
The University of Greenwich was fully aware that I have a congenital mental disorder of paranoid schizophrenia that Dr Rao of BUPA said manifest itself as severe depression with psychotic features and the Unition IPMS was negotiating medical retirement for me from the University but when this became clearly obvious it chose to dismiss me from employment instead to cover up the workplace harassment in conspiracy with the World Poultry Science Association and British Poultry Science Limited as well as British Society of Animal Science. I had considerable difficulty in obtaining the necessary evidence of the role that these co-conspirators played in terminating my scientific career at the University and was accumulating evidence which delayed my registration of the case at the employment tribunal so that I asked the Tribunal to force that evidence to call on these institutions to submit their evidence under oath.
The medical retirement from the University of Greenwich was totally justified as I had similar problems in coping with the business environment at Shell and Sainsburys who also dismissed me from employment subsequently.
I did not attend the Tribunal Hearing fearing that it would be set up as a kangaroo court in my mental state of mind and so chose to take the matter to the Employment Appeals Tribunal and subsequently to the Court of Appeal all to no avail. This led me to think that there was a national conspiracy against me not just in the workplace but also in the judicial systems of the United Kingdom and especially since I lodged a Defamation case against the University of Greenwich at Medway County Court to no effect.
Not only was I deprived of the roughly £10,000 pounds per annum from the University of Greenwich until my retirement I was denied redundancy money of £55,000 as severance pay.
This is just for the record. The Tribunal erred in its decision and I would be grateful if you would acknowledge this fact ahead of the Hearing that would decide the matter on 10 November 2023 at 2.00 pm at Medway Magistrates Court where vulnerable as I am being a mental patient as you will note from the contents of the Dossier that you received, Kent Police is continuing to investigate me for having been responsible for sending harassing, stalking and malicious communications to various people and institutions.
If there was any justice in the United Kingdom, the Tribunal should revisit the evidence and Order the University of Greenwich to pay me 23*£10,000=£230,000 as the amount due to me under the prevailing terms of its Medical Retirement Scheme.
29 June 2023