Jaswinderjit Singh Pannu
[2025] FWC 2293
•7 AUGUST 2025
| [2025] FWC 2293 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying
Jaswinderjit Singh Pannu
(AB2024/950)
| COMMISSIONER HUNT | BRISBANE, 7 AUGUST 2025 |
Application for an FWC order to stop bullying – Application for substantive application to be dismissed against Person Named – No ongoing relationship between Applicant and the two Persons Named – Applicant does not have a workplace and is no longer employed – No risk that Applicant will continue to be bullied at work by the two Persons Named – No power to make order – Application against the two Persons Named has no reasonable prospects of success – Application dismissed against the two Persons Named.
On 10 December 2024, Mr Jaswinderjit Singh Pannu made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for an order to stop bullying pursuant to s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
In his application, Mr Pannu claimed he is being bullied by the following people relevant to his work as a chef in a restaurant named Punjabi Palace in Brisbane:
· Mr Baljit Singh, Director, Punjabi Pty Ltd;
· Mr Daulat Panwar, Director, DaulatVRR Pty Ltd; and
· Ms Athina Stephanou, Director, AIS Immigration Solutions.
Mr Pannu has not attended Punjabi Palace as an employee since December 2024. He is suffering from depression and anxiety. He made a workers’ compensation claim which has been rejected.
On 16 June 2025, I issued a decision[1] and order[2] dismissing Mr Pannu’s application as made against Ms Stephanou, as I was satisfied that there was no risk Mr Pannu would continue to be bullied at work by Ms Stephanou as required by s.789FF(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. I was therefore satisfied that the application made against Ms Stephanou had no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed. I exercised my discretion to do so pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the Act.
The application as made against Mr Baljit Singh and Mr Panwar continued and was listed for hearing on 4 August 2025. Directions were issued to progress the matter to hearing.
Mr Panwar failed to file material in accordance with the directions and a non-compliance hearing proceeded on 21 July 2025. Mr Panwar failed to attend. Mr Baljit Singh attended and was granted permission to be represented by Mr Vinod Kalyan, Principal, Kalyans Lawyers. Mr Pannu was represented by Mr Gurjit Singh, a human rights defender.
At the non-compliance hearing, Mr Kalyan advised that the restaurant, Punjabi Palace, owned by Punjabi Pty Ltd up until July 2024, and then purchased by DaulattVRR Pty Ltd, had been sold again to another entity, Smart Resources QLD Pty Ltd. The sale to Smart Resources QLD Pty Ltd took effect 30 June 2025.
Mr Baljit Singh in his personal capacity owns the premises of Punjabi Palace. He gave his written permission for the lease to be assigned from Daulat VRR Pty Ltd to Smart Resources QLD Pty Ltd effective 30 June 2025.
During the non-compliance hearing I questioned Mr Pannu as to whether he remained employed by any person or any entity, given Mr Panwar’s entity had sold the restaurant to Smart Resources QLD Pty Ltd. I indicated this appeared to be a jurisdictional issue and on the face of it, it would be difficult for Mr Pannu to demonstrate that he would return to work at Punjabi Palace and encounter either Mr Baljit Singh or Mr Panwar.
On 23 July 2025, Punjabi Pty Ltd made an application pursuant to s.587(1)(c) for the Commission to dismiss the application against Punjabi Pty Ltd and Mr Baljit Singh because the application has no reasonable prospects of success against Punjabi Pty Ltd and Mr Baljit Singh. A costs application against Mr Pannu was foreshadowed.
The proceedings on 4 August 2025 were set to continue. Relevant material was filed by Mr Pannu, Mr Baljit Singh and Punjabi Pty Ltd. Mr Panwar failed to file material.
Hearing – 4 August 2025
A hearing took place before me on 4 August 2025. Mr Pannu and Mr Baljit Singh gave evidence and were cross-examined. Mr Gurjit Singh continued to represent Mr Pannu. Mr Kalyan continued to represent Mr Baljit Singh and Punjabi Pty Ltd. The Commission sought the services of a Punjabi interpreter for the hearing, however one was not available. The Commission thanks Mr Gurjit Singh and Mr Kalyan for assisting in interpretation of evidence and submissions.
In evidence given during the hearing, Mr Baljit Singh denied that Mr Pannu remained employed by Punjabi Pty Ltd following the sale of Punjabi Palace to DaulattVRR Pty Ltd in July 2024. He stated that if he was incorrect about that, and the employment did continue, then Mr Pannu was dismissed by him when he stated in the witness box, directly to Mr Pannu, that Mr Pannu is dismissed. Mr Baljit Singh gave evidence that he does not have any influence over the restaurant, nor does he have any association with Smart Resources QLD Pty Ltd. Mr Baljit Singh is simply the landlord of the premises, now leased to Smart Resources QLD Pty Ltd. Smart Resources QLD Pty Ltd purchased the restaurant, together with the business name, Punjabi Palace.
When Mr Pannu gave evidence, he accepted that he cannot foresee having any contact with Mr Baljit Singh in any workplace. He conceded that he does not have any connection with Smart Resources QLD Pty Ltd, nor does he appear to have any employer at the present moment. Yet, Mr Pannu still pressed his application against Mr Baljit Singh.
Consideration
The circumstances in which the Commission may make orders to stop bullying are set out in s.789FF of the Act, as produced below:
“789FF FWC may make orders to stop bullying
(1) If:
(a) a worker has made an application under section 789FC; and
(b) the FWC is satisfied that:
(i)the worker has been bullied at work by an individual or a group of individuals; and
(ii)there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work by the individual or group;
then the FWC may make any order it considers appropriate (other than an order requiring payment of a pecuniary amount) to prevent the worker from being bullied at work by the individual or group.
(2) In considering the terms of an order, the FWC must take into account:
(a) if the FWC is aware of any final or interim outcomes arising out of an investigation into the matter that is being, or has been, undertaken by another person or body—those outcomes; and
(b) if the FWC is aware of any procedure available to the worker to resolve grievances or disputes—that procedure; and
(c) if the FWC is aware of any final or interim outcomes arising out of any procedure available to the worker to resolve grievances or disputes—those outcomes; and
(d) any matters that the FWC considers relevant.”
Pursuant to ss.789FF(1)(b) of the Act, for the Commission to make orders with respect to an application under s.789FC for an order to stop bullying, it must be satisfied that the worker was bullied at work and that there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work.
The leading authority on the application of s.789FF(1)(b) in analogous cases is Mitchell Shaw v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited T/A ANZ Bank; Bianca Haines.[3] In that case Deputy President Gostencnik held that:
“[15] As s. 789FF(b) makes clear, I must be satisfied not only that Mr Shaw has been bullied at work by an individual or group of individuals but also that there is a risk that he will continue to be bullied at work by that individual or group of individuals. Therein lays the difficulty for Mr Shaw. It seems to me that I have no power to make an order to stop bullying unless I can be satisfied relevantly that there is a risk that at work Mr Shaw will continue to be bullied by the individual or group of individuals identified in his application.
[16] It is clear that Mr Shaw is no longer employed by ANZ. The employment relationship has ended. That Mr Shaw is taking steps to seek a remedy in relation to his dismissal and that that may result in reinstatement at some point in the future does not have a bearing on the question that I must answer and is speculative and uncertain. It seems to me clear that there cannot be a risk that Mr Shaw will continue to be bullied at work by an individual or group of individuals identified in his application because Mr Shaw is no longer employed by ANZ and therefore is no longer at work.
[17] It necessarily follows that I do not have power to make an order to stop bullying and, as a consequence, I am satisfied that Mr Shaw’s application has no reasonable prospect of success.”
This position was subsequently affirmed by the Full Bench in Obatoki v Mallee Track Health & Community Services and Others.[4]
In a decision of Commissioner Yilmaz in THDL,[5] the Commissioner dismissed THDL’s application on the basis that the application had no reasonable prospect of success when THDL moved the location of their warehouse from an industrial complex away from where THDL submitted they had been bullied by two men, the persons named. The Commissioner found the parties would no longer have any contact with each other and accordingly dismissed the application. The Commissioner concluded:
“[13] …There is no risk that THDL may be subject to bullying and/or sexual harassment at work. Consequently, there is no reason I should not exercise my discretion to dismiss THDL’s application against the named Respondents.”
As s.789FF(1)(b)(ii) of the Act makes clear, the Commission must be satisfied that there is a risk that Mr Pannu will continue to be bullied at work by Mr Baljit Singh. Without satisfaction of this, no power to make an order against Mr Baljit Singh exists.
Mr Baljit Singh and Punjabi Pty Ltd no longer own or operate Punjabi Palace.
Mr Pannu appears to me not to be employed by any person or entity. Accordingly, Mr Pannu does not have a workplace and will not be at work until he is employed in the future. Mr Pannu was employed by Punjabi Pty Ltd pursuant to a Skills in Demand (Subclass 482) visa requiring sponsorship. Both Punjabi Pty Ltd and Mr Pannu will be obliged to inform the Department of Home Affairs of the cessation of the employment.
I am satisfied that there is no risk that Mr Pannu will continue to be bullied at work by Mr Baljit Singh.
I am further satisfied that there is no risk that Mr Pannu will continue to be bullied at work by Mr Panwar as his corporate entity, DaulattVRR Pty Ltd sold the restaurant to Smart Resources QLD Pty Ltd. There is no obligation for Smart Resources QLD Pty Ltd to employ Mr Pannu and there is no evidence before the Commission that Smart Resources QLD Pty Ltd has offered employment to Mr Pannu.
It follows that I do not have power to make an order to stop bullying in respect of Mr Baljit Singh and Mr Panwar, and as a consequence, I am satisfied that the application for an order under s.789FF has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed. I exercise my discretion to do so pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the Act.
An Order [PR790431] giving effect to my decision will be published.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
G Singh, for the Applicant.
V Kalyan, Solicitor of Kalyans Lawyers, for Punjabi Pty Ltd and Baljit Singh.
Hearing details:
2025.
Brisbane.
4 August.
[1] [2025] FWC 1643.
[2] PR788192.
[3] [2014] FWC 3408.
[4] [2015] FWCFB 1661 at [16].
[5] [2021] FWC 6692.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR790430>
0
0
0