Case 1304590/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Saleem Butt v Select Stores Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304590/2023
- Decision date
- 9 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Saleem Butt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Birmingham by CVP before Employment Judge Edmonds on 8 and 9 January 2024, held that Mr T Saleem Butt's complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and that he was unfairly dismissed by Select Stores Ltd. The judgment records a single upheld claim and no separate discrimination or other statutory claim.
On remedy, the tribunal found that if a fair procedure had been followed, the claimant would still have been fairly dismissed. For that reason the compensatory award was limited to four weeks' pay, described as the time it would have taken for a fair procedure to be followed. The judgment awards a basic award of £1,012.80, calculated as 2 complete years' service x 1.5 age multiplier x weekly pay of £337.60.
The compensatory award was £1,390.92, calculated by reference to weekly pay of £337.60 plus weekly pension contribution of £10.13, multiplied by the four-week period. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment is £2,403.72.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal well-founded. It also found that, had a fair procedure been followed, the claimant would still have been fairly dismissed, so compensation was limited to four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £2,404 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,404
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,013
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,391
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.