Claimant v Sahaj Software Solutions UK Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant did not have the two years' continuous employment required under s108 ERA 1996. Sahaj AI India and Sahaj Pvt were not associated employers within the meaning of s231 ERA, so the claimant's service with Sahaj Pvt from 2014-2022 could not be counted towards qualifying service. The claimant only had 11 months' service with the respondent and its associated employer Sahaj AI India.
This claim was mentioned in the claim form but the judgment only dealt with the preliminary issue of qualifying service for unfair dismissal. The outcome of this claim was not determined at this preliminary hearing.
The claimant brought claims for failure to pay notice pay and holiday pay. These claims were not determined at this preliminary hearing which dealt only with the unfair dismissal jurisdictional issue.
Facts
The claimant worked for Sahaj Software Solutions Pvt Limited in India from 2014-2022, then for Sahaj AI India from August to November 2022, then for the respondent in the UK from November 2022 to October 2023. The respondent accepted the last two periods counted towards service (11 months) as those companies were associated employers, both being controlled by Sahaj Software Inc. The claimant argued his service with Sahaj Pvt should also count, claiming the four common shareholders (Agrawal, Malyandi, Bansal and Dhall) acted in concert to control both Sahaj Pvt and Sahaj AI (via Sahaj Inc), making them associated employers.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction. It found that the four minority shareholders did not have control of both companies within the meaning of s231 ERA. There was no evidence they acted in concert, no binding agreement requiring them to vote together, and evidence they disagreed on strategic issues. Even if plural control were possible, it required shareholders to act as one, which was not established on the facts.
Practical note
Multiple minority shareholders cannot be treated as a controlling third person making companies associated employers unless they have a legally binding agreement or demonstrable evidence of acting in concert, not merely voting similarly; de facto or practical control is insufficient.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2201603/2024
- Decision date
- 22 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Solutions Consultant
- Service
- 11 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor