Case 1301717/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Arshad Mahmood Shah v PYD Packaging Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1301717/2022
- Decision date
- 25 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Chivers Representation
- Venue
- West Midlands
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Arshad Mahmood Shah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at the West Midlands Employment Tribunal, before Employment Judge Chivers, heard Mr Arshad Mahmood Shah's claims against PYD Packaging Limited on 19 and 20 September 2023. It found that the complaints of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal for failure to pay notice monies, and failure to pay holiday pay were well founded and succeeded.
The tribunal also found that the complaints of failure to pay statutory redundancy pay and unlawful deduction of wages relating to arrears of wages were not well founded and failed. No discrimination issues were recorded in the judgment extract.
The judgment does not record any compensation figures. Instead, it states that the case would be listed for a remedies hearing to determine the amount of compensation payable.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded as failure to pay notice monies. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded as failure to pay holiday pay. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Recorded as failure to pay statutory redundancy pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded as unlawful deduction of wages relating to arrears of wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.