AN IMAM who was dismissed amid allegations of misconduct is suing his former mosque for more than £65,000.

Muhammad Sajjad Asim is taking Edinburgh Central Mosque to court claiming that he is owed money after being underpaid and also for living expenses he says he was promised in letters around the time he took up his role at the mosque on May 1, 2006.

Court papers reveal that the Mr Asim was dismissed for gross misconduct in June, although it is not made clear what constituted that misconduct. A separate industrial tribunal is ongoing.

Mr Asim, a father of three, is claiming he is owed about £25,406 for rent, £13,436 for meals, £12,532 for expenses including for council tax, water charges and power, £15,666 for wages still owed, and £372 for travel expenses paid when he went to prison to minister for Muslim inmates.

It is suggested he was promised £1200 a month take-home pay but only received about £866 a month for much of the time he was employed.

Mr Asim’s agents, Thompson’s, wrote in court papers: “The defender, having breached the contract of employment by failing to provide accommodation, ought to make reparation therefor.”

Thompson’s also said: “The defender has not provided meals to the pursuer, this is a breach of contract. As a consequence of this the pursuer has incurred debts to the Mosque Kitchen.”

The agent claimed that in the early letters from the mosque it was agreed “the defender would provide the pursuer with ample accommodation for his family, would provide the pursuer with meals, and bear any expenses or liabilities incurred by the pursuer upon lodging and travelling in the course of his duties”.

The mosque contests the letters, which Mr Asim claims outlined his employment conditions, and Lindsay’s, agents for the mosque, said in court documents: “In 2006 it was not the practice of the defender to issue formal written offers of employment to employees.

“The mosque also claims that during more recent exchanges relating to pay and conditions the Imam did not raise concerns over certain expenses.

“He queried the location of his work. He queried whether he could reclaim travel expenses ... again at no stage during the consultation was any query raised by the pursuer in relation to salary level or provision by the defender of accommodation, free meals or any payment in respect of council tax, water charges and/or power.”

Lindsay’s added: “In all the circumstances, the defender is not bound by the letters purportedly dated October 5, 2005 and May 10, 2006. On June 22, 2011, the defender terminated the pursuer’s employment, under explanation that the dismissal was on the basis of (the pursuer’s)... gross misconduct.”

A hearing is due today at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.