Case 1303827/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Nirajan KC (lay representative) v Mr. S. Rajhbhandari, Director — 2024
- Case reference
- 1303827/2023
- Decision date
- 6 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nirajan KC (lay representative)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Birmingham on 11 October 2023 and 6 March 2024, Employment Judge Wedderspoon recorded that the claimant’s claims for unlawful deductions, holiday pay, notice pay, and failure to provide written terms and conditions were all well founded. The tribunal awarded £6,500 for unlawful deductions, £650.81 for holiday pay, £500 for notice pay, and £1,000 for the failure to provide written terms and conditions.
The tribunal also made a declaration that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with itemised pay statements. The written record gives the outcomes and awards but does not set out fuller reasons beyond noting that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The total judgment was £8,650.81, payable forthwith.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £6,500 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £651 |
| Breach of contract | Award described as notice pay. | Upheld | — | £500 |
| Other | Failure to provide written terms and conditions. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
| Other | Tribunal made a declaration that the respondent failed to provide itemised pay statements; no separate monetary award was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,651
- across all upheld claims
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.