s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Queensland Institute of Higher Education Pty Ltd

Unfair dismissal application -jurisdictional objection alleging no dismissal - employee resigned - jurisdictional objection upheld - application dismissed

• [1] Dr Nikita Karmakar commenced part-time employment as a Professor with the Queensland Institute of Higher Education Pty Ltd (Institute) on 5 February 2024.

• [2] On 29 March 2025, Dr Karmakar sent an email to Vladica Belovukovic (CEO) and Prabal Barua (Dean) which relevantly stated:

"After considerable thinking for sometime now I have decided to leave AIIHE on and from 7 April 2025. If this date is not suitable, I can leave one week later on and from 14 April. I have taken this decision considering my own welfare, above all, I have no other avenue to contribute to good academic governance at AIIHE.

The AIHHE will excel further under your able leadership. I have enjoyed always talking with you..."

• [3] On 7 April 2025, Mr Belovukovic sent an email response to Dr Karmakar and others which relevantly stated:

"Thank you for your efforts at AIIHE, we respect your resignation dated 29th of March 2025 and understand your decision.

AIIHE accepts your resignation, as advised by you, to maintain a smooth transition, we agree to your last day as the 14th of April 2025.

We want to take this opportunity to wish you all the very best for the future..."

• [4] Later on 7 April 2025, Dr Karmakar replied to Mr Belovukovic's email and relevantly stated:

"Hope you have already thought about staffing arrangement replacing me.

It takes time for students to settle with a staff. I cater a large number of students combining the numbers in both Monday and Thursday and student numbers are increased not decreased (99 now in both subjects). All students have both trust and respect on me. If I leave next Monday after teaching 7.5 weeks, students might have ill feeling about the AIIHE as an institution delivering quality education. Please think carefully all aspects.

Considering the welfare of students as well as upholding the reputation of AIIHE, I shall continue to teach until the end of the semester and finalise all assessment tasks for S1 2025. I am flexible even if you think my last day will be next Monday, I shall accept it without hesitation."

• [5] The evidence suggests Mr Belovukovic did not respond to Dr Karmakar's email and that Dr Karmakar continued working past the previously proposed end date of 14 April 2025. I accept this meant Dr Karmakar's initial resignation email was superseded by the email dated 7 April 2025 which indicated he would work until the end of the semester.

• [6] The next significant event appears to be a meeting between Dr Karmakar, Mr Belovukovic, and Mandalbayar Bayarsaikhan (Human Resources Manager) on 8 May 2025. The evidence about what was said at this meeting differed. Dr Karmakar suggested he indicated he did not want to resign but this was denied by Mr Belovokovic and Mr Bayarsaikhan. Dr Karmakar was also aggrieved that the Dean, Mr Barua, was not present at the meeting.

• [7] Following the meeting on 8 May 2025, Mr Belovukovic sent an email to Dr Karmakar, Mr Barua, and a HR email address on 9 May 2025 which had a letter attached. The letter relevantly stated:

"We refer to your email of resignation dated 29 March 2025.

We also refer to our acknowledgement of your notice of resignation and acceptance of the same on 7 April 2025, in which we agreed to your final day of employment as 14 April 2025.

At your request we agreed to extend your notice period until the end of semester to enable you to finish teaching and complete marking. As the semester ended on 25 May 2025, to enable time for marking we acknowledge that your final day of employment will be 2 June 2025.

Please ensure that you return all company property to us before you finish work on that date.

We further note the issues raised in our meeting with you on 8 May 2025. We would like to offer you the opportunity to discuss these matters further. Please let us know if you would like to arrange time to discuss these issues..."

• [8] Dr Karmakar did not respond to Mr Belovukovic's letter until 27 May 2025. Dr Karmakar sent an email on 27 May 2025 raising concerns about Mr Belovukovic drafting a purported resignation letter for him on 9 May 2025 and suggested he was being forced to resign or was being dismissed by the Institute. The relationship between Dr Karmakar and Mr Belovukovic deteriorated from that point in various email exchanges. Mr Bayarsaikhan ultimately sent Dr Karmakar an email on 2 June 2025 confirming this was the last day of his employment and seeking to arrange an exit interview. Mr Bayarsaikhan also referred to wanting to organise a small farewell for Dr Karmakar so the Institute could express its gratitude for his contributions.

• [9] Dr Karmakar's access to the Institute's systems was subsequently removed and Dr Karmakar sent several emails where he disputed his treatment and the steps taken by the Institute. Dr Karmakar filed an unfair dismissal application on 24 June 2025 which alleged he was dismissed by the Institute on 3 June 2025.

• [10] Dr Karmarkar strongly opposed me granting permission for the Institute to be represented by a lawyer at the hearing conducted on 14 November 2025. After providing the parties with an opportunity to file submissions, I confirmed in an email from my chambers on 5 November 2025 that I had decided to grant permission for the Institute to be represented on the basis that the matter was reasonably complicated and granting permission would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently. I considered at the time that determining whether Dr Kamarkar resigned with legal effect or retracted an earlier resignation and was dismissed by the Institute could be complicated.

• [11] With the benefit of hindsight, granting permission for the Institute to be represented did enable the matter to be conducted somewhat more efficiently because Dr Karmakar and Mr Belovukovic broke into argument several times during the hearing. I imagine that would have occurred to an even greater degree if Mr Belovukovic was the only representative for the Institute.

• [12] After considering all the evidence, I consider it is clear Dr Karmakar communicated a legally effective resignation from his employment with the Institute. The resignation was initially intended to take effect on 7 or 14 April 2025. The Institute then agreed to Dr Karmakar's request to work until the end of the semester. Dr Karmakar's email dated 7 April 2025 communicated a legally effective resignation to take effect at the end of the semester and superseded his prior resignation notice.

• [13] On 9 May 2025, the Institute confirmed that the relevant date for the end of the semester would be 2 June 2025 and that Dr Karmakar's employment would end by way of resignation on that date. Dr Karmakar appears to have taken no action to dispute that position until late May 2025. I do not accept Dr Karmakar's evidence that he was so busy teaching that he could not even send an email disputing Mr Belovukovic's letter until late May 2025.

• [14] Having communicated a legally effective resignation, Dr Karmakar was not able to unilaterally withdraw the resignation.[1] The Institute was entitled to rely upon the resignation notice and to take steps to replace Dr Karmakar. The Institute could have agreed to allow Dr Karmakar to retract his resignation. However, it is clear the Institute did not agree to Dr Karmakar retracting his resignation when the issue became contentious in late May 2025.

• [15] It is unfortunate that Dr Karmakar is unhappy about how his time with the Institute ended. Dr Karmakar is clearly a very respected academic with experience working at universities around the world. However, based on what occurred at the hearing, I consider it is for the best that Dr Karmakar and Mr Belovukovic are no longer working together.

• [16] I find that Dr Karmakar resigned from his employment with the Institute effective 2 June 2025. Dr Karmakar accepted during the hearing that he voluntarily decided to communicate his decision to resign. I accept that was the case.

• [17] Dr Karmakar is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because he was not dismissed within the meaning of s.386 of the FW Act.

• [18] The Institute's jurisdictional objection is upheld. Dr Karmakar's application is dismissed.

Ms S Yang from Irwell Law representing the Institute.

[1] Birrell v Australian National Airlines Commission [1984] FCA 378; (1984) 9 IR 101.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer