Case 1304221/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Benjamin v Mr Ranjan Kashyap — 2022
- Case reference
- 1304221/2021
- Decision date
- 10 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mensah Date
- Venue
- Birmingham West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Benjamin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely at Birmingham West on 23 February 2022 before Employment Judge L Mensah. Miss T Benjamin appeared in person and the respondent, identified as Mr Ranjan Kashyap, did not attend. The tribunal recorded that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal found that the claimant’s holiday pay claim was made out and ordered the respondent to pay £1,047.12 by no later than 10 March 2022. It also found that the claimant’s unlawful deduction from wages claim was made out and ordered payment of the outstanding £1,344.36 by the same date. The judgment does not set out a separate split of those amounts beyond the individual orders made on each claim.
The claimant’s wrongful dismissal claim was not made out and was therefore dismissed. No discrimination, whistleblowing, or other statutory claims were recorded in the judgment text provided. The total monetary award recorded by the tribunal was £2,391.48.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,047.12 by 10 March 2022. | Upheld | — | £1,047 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding £1,344.36 by 10 March 2022. | Upheld | — | £1,344 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the wrongful dismissal claim was not made out. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,391
- 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.