An employment judge has criticised a faith charity for failing to declare income tax or national insurance payments in the wages and offerings paid to one of its priests.
In a long and scathing report at the end of a tribunal, Judge John Crosfill said Vishwa Hindu Parishad, which operates a temple (mandir) in Ilford, East London, “self-evidently has had scant regard to employment law”.
Hinting at the need for an investigation, the judge said that, while he had not been tasked with deciding whether the arrangement between the charity and the priest was “tainted by illegality”, the matter was “now in the public domain”.
The comments came as Judge Crosfill ordered the charity to pay almost £16,000 to a “stubborn and argumentative” priest, Mr A K Tewari, who was sacked on 17 November 2020 after being accused of disobeying instructions designed to stop the spread of Covid-19.
A claim of unfair dismissal was upheld, as were claims for notice pay and unlawful deduction from wages, based on the failure to pay the claimant the national minimum wage during the two-year period ending with his dismissal.
The claim that there was a failure to pay the claimant accrued but untaken holiday pay was also upheld.
But Judge Crosfill chose to reduce by 40 per cent both the basic and compensatory awards for unfair dismissal “because of the claimant’s conduct before the dismissal”.
Tewari volunteered at the mandir from about 2013 and said that from 2016 he worked full time and received a regular payment for his services as a purohit (a chaplain or family priest).
On 17 November 2020, he was sent a letter ending the arrangement between him and the mandir, which had reopened after the first lockdown, on 29 June 2020, with a large number of measures in place to restrict the spread of Covid-19.
Judge Crosfill said Tewari showed “real resistance to the instructions that he was given in relation to Covid safety”, including to prevent worshippers singing and “gonging the bell”.
“I find that he did not implement the instructions on at least one occasion. I find that he could have reasonably done so but thought it religiously inappropriate. I also find that he was argumentative when he was questioned about this.
“If I were to categorise the claimant’s conduct I would say that he was stubborn, dismissive and argumentative in response to being told what to do.”
According to the tribunal report, the problem escalated.
The judge said: “He unilaterally decided on 5 November to attend the mandir to perform religious rituals Pooja/Aarti because he claimed to be respecting the existing order of the president of the charity.”
Tewari said it was “unreasonable” to expect him to intervene during prayers, but Judge Crosfill said: “I disagree. This was a public health emergency and the respondents were entitled to expect the claimant to ensure that the devotees were given and followed clear instructions.”
He said: “I have found that the claimant was, in part, responsible for the actions that led to his dismissal. Whilst I have not concluded he was wholly responsible by any means, the basis of my finding is that there was conduct by him which evidenced what had become a very poor working relationship. He contributed to that.”
It also emerged in the tribunal report that Tewari had brought High Court proceedings against temple trustees, claiming defamation and breach of confidence.
They were dismissed for being a day out of time, with the judge refusing an extension because Tewari’s claims were “abusive and had little reasonable prospect of success”.
Tewari was ordered at the end of the High Court hearing to pay costs of £41,000.
Concluding the tribunal report, Judge Crosfill said: “In what is a first for me, I suggest that, given the outstanding costs judgement in the High Court proceedings and the possibility of further appeals, the parties at least contemplate some form of alternative dispute resolution.
“This dispute concerns a small religious charity. Having such a rift in the community is unfortunate.”