Garda raid on home of award-winning curry restaurant owner finds bank card in worker's name
restaurateur
last December found personal documents belonging to a migrant chef who has said he was 'never made aware' of a debit card in his name, a tribunal has heard.
Fahid Saleem, codirector of his family's award-winning Pakistani curry house group, Daata, told the
Workplace Relations Commission (WRC)
he had 'zero knowledge' that his wife had been given the documents belonging to the chef, her orphaned cousin Mohammad Usman Ghani.
The WRC noted sworn evidence from Mr Ghani, a commis chef brought to Ireland on a work permit in 2023, that he knew nothing of a debit card for a bank account into which his wages were being paid, and only got access 'thanks to the guards'.
The disclosures were made during a WRC hearing into a series of workplace rights claims by Mr Ghani against his former employer Mirha & Aliha Ltd, trading as Daata Restaurant, which have now been 'amicably resolved'.
READ MORE
Mr Ghani, who was represented by Sylwia Nowakoska and Pretty Ndawo of the Migrant Rights Centre of Ireland, claimed his wages were 'withheld' while he was working at its takeaway and restaurant in Bray, Co Wicklow for 'about 70 hours a week'.
He said company director Fahid Saleem 'was putting pressure on me all the time'. 'There were dishes I would make – he would say: 'Make it again, it's not okay', time and time, again and again,' he said.
Mr Saleem would remind him 'again and again; your work permit is on us, your accommodation is from us', he said.
In his evidence to the tribunal, Mr Saleem said: 'I treat all my staff… as part of my family, and I would never threaten, harass or bully or annoy any of them.'
Mr Saleem said he went to significant expense to bring Mr Ghani, his wife's cousin, into Ireland in July 2023. Mr Ghani was taken in by his wife's family after the deaths of his parents when he was 'very young', the witness said.
He said he 'would not be able to get the orders out' in the takeaway if he was forcing Mr Ghani to cook meals 'again and again'.
He denied threatening to deport Mr Ghani or 'put him out of the country' and said that would be 'very stupid'.
Mr Ghani said he decided on August 1st last year that he was not coming to work the next day after being told he faced being 'deported back to Pakistan' after making a 'small mistake' and being reprimanded for 'not working faster'.
Mr Saleem said there was no 'altercation' that day and that he had simply asked Mr Ghani: 'Why are the orders not going out?'.
He learned the following day that Mr Ghani was absent from the staff house owned by his younger sister, his codirector Aliha Saleem, he said.
Bank account
Mr Saleem said that before a bank account was opened in Mr Ghani's name, he gave the worker cash 'for the first couple of months' before bank transfers commenced.
Adjudication officer Breiffni O'Neill said there had been 'no suggestion' during Mr Ghani's direct evidence that the worker 'gave any instruction to transfer money to that account' and 'could not explain' how it got there.
'He said he was never made aware at any stage in the immediate aftermath of the account being opened of any card. The first he was made aware was when he got access to the bank account, thanks to the guards,' Mr O'Neill said.
Susan Jones, instructed by Jones Magee Solicitors, for the company, submitted that this had to be considered a 'credibility issue' for the worker and said she had witnesses who could testify to Mr Ghani 'operating his bank card'.
Mr Saleem said he was not aware of any allegation of money being 'withheld' from Mr Ghani until after December 6th last, when there was a 6.30am 'Garda raid' on his house in Greystones.
Mr Saleem said his wife explained to him afterwards that Mr Ghani left 'all his documents' at the company house. These ended up at Mr Saleem's home after Mr Ghani's ex-colleagues tried and failed to return them – and left them with his wife 'for safe keeping', he said.
'I had zero knowledge of this arrangement,' he said.
On the working time claims, Mr Saleem said Mr Ghani 'would work six days a week' but had time to take breaks and had access to the restaurant premises before work to cook his own meals.
Mr Ghani also claimed for pay in lieu for working public holidays, including Christmas Day and St Stephen's Day in 2023. Mr Saleem's evidence was: 'We don't open on 25th, 26th, 27th December.'
Mr O'Neill put it to him that he had signed off on a time sheet that recorded Mr Ghani working those days. 'It might have been an oversight on my part,' Mr Saleem said.
Mr O'Neill then turned to the respondent's barrister and said: 'Ms Jones, you might need to reflect on your position overnight and talk to your counterpart in the morning.'
Mr O'Neill did not resume the public hearings when the parties met on Thursday at Lansdowne House in Dublin.
Migrant Rights Council of Ireland said in a statement on Thursday afternoon that matters had been 'amicably resolved' following talks. The respondent's legal team declined to comment.
The business, founded in Bray in 1999 by Mr Saleem's parents, has four restaurants in north Co Wicklow and south Co Dublin, and is preparing to open its fifth in Sandymount at the end of the month.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
13 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Omagh bombing survivor wants High Court to compel State to hold public inquiry into atrocity
Two people directly affected by the Omagh bombing want the High Court to compel the Irish government to establish a public inquiry into the atrocity. Emmet Tunney, who survived the 1998 dissident republican bombing, says the Government is obliged to establish a public inquiry in circumstances where state authorities allegedly held 'actionable intelligence' relating to the attack. Mr Tunney's case states that a public inquiry is required to ensure an effective investigation of the atrocity. He alleges the State's failure to hold such an inquiry is a breach of his rights under the Constitution and under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). According to Mr Tunney's court documents, article two of the ECHR requires an 'effective, independent, prompt, and public' investigation in circumstances where state agents knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to life. READ MORE Articles 40 and 41 of the Constitution require effective investigations of deaths involving potential state failures, his papers say. Shawneen Conway, whose 18-year-old brother Gareth was killed in the bombing, is seeking to bring an action similar to Mr Tunney's, the High Court heard on Tuesday. A total of 29 people, including a mother pregnant with twins, died and hundreds were injured when a car bomb planted by the Real IRA exploded in the centre of the Co Tyrone town on August 15th, 1998. An independent inquiry into the bombing established by the UK government opened in Omagh in January and is continuing. That inquiry is examining whether the atrocity could have been prevented by UK authorities. In the High Court on Tuesday, Ruaidhrí Giblin, for Mr Tunney, sought an early date for his application seeking the court's permission to bring the case. Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said she would hear Mr Tunney's and Ms Conway's applications for court permission next week. Mr Tunney, from Omagh, Co Tyrone, is seeking an order compelling the Government to establish a public inquiry into the bombing and he wants a court declaration that the Government's failure to establish such an inquiry to date is in breach of his rights. He wants to bring his case against the Government, Ireland and the Attorney General. His case claims some of the perpetrators of the bombing are believed to have operated within the Republic of Ireland. He alleges there were failures in intelligence sharing and co-operation between Irish and UK authorities before the bombing. Authorities in the Republic may have had prior knowledge of the Real IRA's planning, his documents claim. Mr Tunney also argues an Irish government inquiry is required in circumstances where there are limitations on the jurisdiction of the UK government's inquiry. For example, he says, the UK government cannot make findings as to whether Irish authorities are culpable for a failure to supply information relating to the bombing. In the UK Omagh bombing inquiry, its chairman, Lord Turnbull, heard arguments over the last two days regarding applications from some survivor and family groups seeking to be represented by special advocates. They said their interests should be represented in closed hearings and they raised a risk of damage to confidence in the inquiry if they were not. However, a lawyer for the UK government said no statutory public inquiry has had special advocates to date and there was no justification to have them in this case. Katherine Grange KC also contended no provision was made for such appointments in the 2005 Inquiries Act and she cautioned around avoiding unnecessary costs. At the conclusion of the hearings around special advocates on Tuesday, Lord Turnbull said the issue raised is 'important and interesting'. He will provide a written decision 'in due course'. – Additional reporting PA
Sunday World
an hour ago
- Sunday World
Jury in Niall Gilligan trial asks judge 'what is the next step if we are not unanimous?'
At Ennis Circuit Court just before 5pm on Tuesday, Judge Francis Comerford sent the jury home 'to come back tomorrow to make a fresh start of it'. The jury of seven men and five women in the assault trial of former All-Star and Clare All-Ireland winning hurler, Niall Gilligan are to continue their deliberations on Wednesday. At Ennis Circuit Court just before 5pm on Tuesday, Judge Francis Comerford sent the jury home 'to come back tomorrow to make a fresh start of it'. In the case, Mr Gilligan (48) of Rossroe, Kilmurry, Sixmilebridge denies the assault causing harm with a stick of a then 12 year old boy at the Jamaica Inn hostel, Sixmilebridge on October 5th 2023. The jury deliberated for 2 hours and 47 minutes on Tuesday when the jury returned to court with a question for Judge Comerford at 4.51pm. After the jury took up their seats in the jury box, the jury foreman asked: 'What is the next step if we are not unanimous?' In reply, Judge Comerford said: 'There are various procedures which can kick in if juries are not unanimous but they can only be taken at various points." He said: "It is always preferable that you try to reach a unanimous verdict - that is the ideal and it is better than any alternative." Judge Comerford said: 'At 4.50pm, I think it is appropriate that you break for the day and come back tomorrow and make a fresh start of it." Judge Comerford said that if the jury is still not unanimous in its verdict after a while on Wednesday, the position can be reviewed. Judge Comerford told the jury: 'You have had a lot of information the past couple of days and before that.' They jury commenced their deliberations at 12.33pm on Tuesday with a break for lunch and before they commenced, Judge Comerford told them that they should make their decision in the case 'after a cold, direct, forensic determination of the facts'. Judge Comerford told the jury that what they have to decide is was there an assault and is it not an assault because of a lawful excuse. In his charge to the jury Judge Comerford directed if they are satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the first encounter between Mr Gilligan and the boy that led to the force being applied commenced and started outside the two storey Jamaica Inn rather than in the corridor of the building, then they can't consider the lawful use of force as a defence. Judge Comerford also told the jury in the defence of self defence they should consider did the accused honestly believe that he had to use force for the purpose of protecting himself from an assault or damage to his property. Judge Comerford said that if the answer is 'no', the defence of self defence is no longer available to the accused. He said that if the answer is yes, then was the force used by the accused reasonable and necessary in the circumstances as he saw them. He said that if the answer is 'yes' to that question 'then you must acquit. If no, it wasn't reasonably necessary, well then he is guilty of the offence.' Judge Comerford said that the jury can only apply this test if they are satisfied that the first encounter was inside the two storey building. Judge Comerford said that both child witnesses in their video interviews and under cross examination in the case said that the first encounter with Mr Gilligan was outside the building. Judge Comerford asked the jury that they should ask what would the gain be for the child witnesses saying that when they both admitted that they were earlier in the building. In his closing speech to the jury on Monday counsel for Mr Gilligan, Patrick Whyms BL said in no way is Mr Gilligan trying to suggest that he was entitled to punish the boy as was suggested and said that the injuries sustained by the boy 'are clearly regrettable'. Mr Whyms said that on the evening at the Jamaica Inn hostel, Mr Gilligan 'didn't know that he was dealing with a child and did not create this situation'. Mr Whyms (instructed by solicitor, Daragh Hassett) said that Mr Gilligan "was at the end of his tether" by the vandalism being done to a vacant property he was trying to sell. Putting forward the defence of reasonable force against the charge, Mr Whyms said that Mr Gilligan was at the Jamaica Inn hostel on the night of October 5th 'in the dark and believed that he was under siege'. He said: 'Believing himself under threat and needing to protect himself and his property, Niall Gilligan needs to make an instant decision and so we are here." Mr Whyms said: 'And Mr Gilligan, a family man who has young children and no previous convictions gives a clear story which has't changed and an entirely credible, fulsome account of what happened." Earlier in her closing speech on Monday, Ms Sarah Jane Comerford BL (instructed by State Solicitor for Clare, Aisling Casey) told the jury: 'This is a story of a man who lost his cool.' She said: 'Instead of picking up the boy after he slipped and bringing him out to his car and driving him home and telling his parents, he hit him and lost it and he was angry and frustrated.' Ms Comerford said that the alleged assault in broad daylight 'is the action of a man who took out his anger and frustration on a child. There is no evidence that his injuries were caused by anything other than his interactions with Niall Gilligan.' Ms Comerford said that Niall Gilligan 'lost control and punished the boy for the damage and inconvenience caused to his property on a morning when he had to clean up human faeces and urine from his property'. The jury continues their deliberations on Wednesday. Niall Gilligan at Ennis Circuit Court News in 90 Seconds - July 22nd
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Jurors to continue deliberating on assault claim against former Clare hurler Niall Gilligan
A jury of seven men and five women in the trial of former Clare All-Ireland winning hurler Niall Gilligan are to continue their deliberations on Wednesday. Mr Gilligan (48), of Rossroe, Kilmurry, Sixmilebridge, denies assault causing harm with a stick of a boy, then 12, at the Jamaica Inn hostel, Sixmilebridge, Co Clare, in 2023. The jury at Ennis Circuit Court deliberated for nearly three hours on Tuesday before asking the judge: 'What is the next step if we are not unanimous?' Judge Francis Comerford said there were various procedures that can kick in, but it was 'always preferable' to reach a unanimous verdict. READ MORE He told them to break for the day to 'make a fresh start' in the morning. In his closing speech to the jury on Monday, Patrick Whyms, defending, said Mr Gilligan 'didn't know that he was dealing with a child and did not create this situation'. Mr Whyms said Mr Gilligan 'was at the end of his tether' over vandalism being done to a vacant property he was trying to sell. Putting forward the defence of reasonable force, Mr Whyms said Mr Gilligan was 'in the dark and believed that he was under siege' on the night of October 5th, 2023. Sarah Jane Comerford, prosecuting, said: 'This is a story of a man who lost his cool.' She said Mr Gilligan 'lost control and punished the boy for the damage and inconvenience caused to his property on a morning when he had to clean up human faeces and urine from his property'. The jury continues its deliberations on Wednesday.
