Case 1303858/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Shukla v Jatha Transport Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1303858/2023
- Decision date
- 12 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Chivers Representation
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Shukla
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr R Shukla brought claims against Jatha Transport Limited for unauthorised deduction from pay under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996, said to relate to commission and overtime, and for breach of contract in respect of unpaid expenses for PPE and petrol. Employment Judge Chivers heard the case in the Midlands West Employment Tribunal on 12 August 2024, with Mr Shukla appearing in person with the assistance of a Punjabi interpreter and the respondent represented by its director, Mr Amrit Singh.
The tribunal held that the unauthorised deduction from pay complaint was not well-founded and dismissed it. It also held that the breach of contract complaint about unpaid PPE and petrol expenses was not well founded and dismissed it. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint under Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of commission and overtime was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint in respect of unpaid expenses for PPE and petrol was found not well founded and dismissed. | 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.