Case 1309126/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Jusdeep Singh and Ms Sajinder Nagra v Essence of Beauty — 2022
- Case reference
- 1309126/2020
- Decision date
- 8 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hena
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Jusdeep Singh and Ms Sajinder Nagra
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found in favour of Ms Singh on her unlawful deduction of wages claim under s.23 ERA 1996. Although the respondent paid the sums the evening before the hearing without her knowledge, the tribunal held that payment before the hearing did not prevent a finding that an unlawful deduction had occurred. It made no further order for payment on that deduction because the sums had already been paid or repaid.
The tribunal also awarded Ms Singh £680 under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars of employment. It held that the minimum award applied, that there were no exceptional circumstances to disapply it, and that a four-week award was not just and equitable. The tribunal further held that interest could not be awarded on the unlawful deduction claim.
For Ms Nagra, the tribunal found that she remained a full-time worker until 21 August 2020 and rejected the respondent's case that she had become part time or that she owed a furlough overpayment. It accepted her evidence that she had requested part-time working but had not received confirmation, and it relied on the respondent's own records, including holiday calculations, which continued to treat her as full time.
The tribunal found unlawful deductions from Ms Nagra's wages for March, July and August 2020 and recorded an order for £2,306.75 gross. It also awarded holiday pay of £4,986.70 gross. On holiday carry-over, it applied the reasoning in Max-Planck-Gesellschaft v Shimizu and Kreuziger v Land Berlin, finding no evidence that the respondent had encouraged leave or explained the consequences of not taking it before 7 January 2020.
The respondent's counterclaim for notice-period loss failed because the tribunal held that a counterclaim for breach of contract could not be made in response to the claimant's unlawful deduction claim. The tribunal also found that payslips had not been provided for March-August 2020 and referred to s.8 and s.12(4) ERA 1996, but it did not clearly separate any additional monetary figure for that issue from the sums already recorded.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant. The tribunal found an unlawful deduction of wages under s.23 ERA 1996, but the respondent had already paid the sums the evening before the hearing, so no further payment was ordered. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | First claimant. The tribunal awarded the s.38 Employment Act 2002 minimum award for failure to provide written particulars of employment, assessed at £680. | Upheld | — | £680 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant. The tribunal found unlawful deductions in relation to hours worked in March, July and August 2020; the final order recorded £2,306.75 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,307 |
| Holiday pay | Second claimant. The tribunal held that holiday pay was owed because the respondent had not shown that it encouraged leave to be taken or explained the consequences of not taking it, and it accepted carry-over on the evidence. | Upheld | — | £4,987 |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's counterclaim for failure to work a notice period failed because the tribunal held that the claimant had not brought a breach of contract claim that would found such a counterclaim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Second claimant. The tribunal found that payslips were not provided for March-August 2020. It referred to s.8 and s.12(4) ERA 1996 and limited the sum to the unlawful deductions found, without clearly splitting a separate monetary figure. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,973
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- s.8 ERA 1996
- s.12(4) ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
- Max-Planck-Gesellschaft v Shimizu and Kreuziger v Land Berlin
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.