Praveen Samuel v Ditec Automatic Entrance Specialists Pty Ltd T/A ABA Automatic Gates

[2021] FWC 4503

[2021] FWC 4503

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Praveen Samuel
v
Ditec Automatic Entrance Specialists Pty Ltd T/A ABA Automatic Gates
(U2021/5392)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI SYDNEY, 27 JULY 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 20 June 2021, Praveen Samuel made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was lodged 10 days outside of the 21 day period prescribed by s.394(2) of the Act.

[2] My chambers sent correspondence to Mr Samuel on 12 July 2021 requiring him to provide a statement in support of the granting of an extension of time for the late lodgement of his application. He was asked to provide the information by no later than 5:00pm on 15 July 2021. No response was received from Mr Samuel.

[3] On 16 July 2021, further correspondence was sent to Mr Praveen directing him to provide a response by 4:00pm on 20 July 2021. He was advised that in the absence of a reply his application may be dismissed.

[4] To date, Mr Samuel has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[5] Section 587 of the Act provides:

587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

[6] The words, “Without limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act, establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

[7] In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

[8] An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR732158>