A lawyer who was described as “untruthful” by a judge in an employment tribunal case is taking Scottish Labour to court amid a race row in a Westminster selection contest.

Asim Khan is seeking a judicial review of a decision that has resulted in the exclusion of over eighty members, many of whom are from ethnic minority backgrounds, from voting in the internal cost.

However, a senior party source said Khan’s legal bid was “ridiculous” as Labour’s decision-making has been informed by an opinion from a Queen's Counsel - an experienced advocate.

Glasgow South West is a key target for Scottish Labour as the seat was narrowly held by the SNP’s Chris Stephens last year by fewer than 70 seats.

As revealed by the Sunday Herald, the contest to be Labour’s candidate is believed to be a two-horse race between left winger Matt Kerr, who was the party candidate in the same seat in 2017, and Khan.

The process has been marred by a row over the “freeze” date in the contest which, one agreed, gives everyone who has been a member for six months a vote.

Last year’s Scottish Labour leadership contest witnessed a huge sign up of new members by the supporters of defeated candidate Anas Sarwar and Khan’s backers believe some of the Glasgow recruits should be eligible.

Following legal advice from a QC to the Scottish party, it was agreed that March 21st, which would exclude over 80 of the new members from voting, is the cut off point.

It was today reported by a tabloid newspaper that Khan, an employment lawyer, has launched legal action to challenge the decision.

It is understood that Khan’s Court of Session petition has branded the decision as “irrational, unreasonable, illegal and ultra vires” and calls for an interdict to prevent the contest going ahead.

A Labour source was quoted saying that the “action taken by the party establishment has clear racist undertones".

It was also reported that Sarwar is backing Khan and had lobbied the party.

The latest development comes two days after the Sunday Herald reported that Asim Khan was mentioned in an employment tribunal judgement relating to a charity, Roshni, which he used to chair.

In 2016, a judge awarded a woman at the charity over £70,000 after ruling that she had been subjected to “harassment, victimisation and discrimination” by Ali Khan and another man, Shaukat Sultan.

According to the judgement, Ali Khan’s actions included reducing the victim’s working days after she rejected his advances, threatening her with dismissal, as well as verbal and physical abuse.

However, in the remedy judgement of August 2016, Asim Khan was also mentioned: “We have noted that there was a complete failure on behalf of the Chairman of the First Respondent, Mr Asim Khan to take any steps to protect the claimant…”

One of the three recommendations related to Asim Khan taking “no action” when the woman approached him about her treatment by the Ali Khan.

It stated: “For all of these reasons we find it appropriate to require the Chairperson of the First Respondent to issue a letter of apology to the claimant in respect of the treatment that she has received from the Second Respondent [Ali Khan] and Shaukat Sultan.”

A subsequent judgement on expenses provided a summary of the oral findings in the case: “In relation to Asim Khan, we found that Mr Khan was evasive at the outset of cross-examination.”

It added: “We found that Mr Asim Khan was untruthful, and that he did know what was going on between Mr Ali Khan and the claimant because he had received the voicemail left by Ali Khan, that they had a supplementary conversation and that he would have received a copy of the email of 18 May 2015.”

The charity folded after the tribunal issued its findings.

Asim Khan told the Sunday Herald last week:

“I am proud of my role with Roshni and the charitable work we did for vulnerable ethnic minority communities in Glasgow. The claims which came to light were deeply distressing and following the tribunal I made a full apology to Ms C on behalf of the charity. As chair, I acted appropriately at all times and provided the tribunal with an accurate account of my knowledge of the claims. I strongly reject any opinion to the contrary.”