Case 1400713/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Singh v Bestway Wholesale Ltd Heard by Cloud video — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400713/2020
- Decision date
- 30 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed
- Panel members
- Ms G Meehan, Mr C Williams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Singh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting under Employment Judge Reed with Ms G Meehan and Mr C Williams, unanimously rejected the claimant's religion discrimination complaint. It found that the respondent did not discriminate against Mr S Singh on the ground of his religion.
The unfair dismissal claim also failed because the tribunal found that Mr Singh was not dismissed. On that basis there was no unfair dismissal within the meaning of the claim as presented.
The tribunal further rejected the contractual payment claims. It held that the respondent did not breach the claimant's contract by failing to pay sums representing overtime during a period of suspension, and it also found that the claimant was not entitled to payment representing notice. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal found the respondent did not discriminate against the claimant on the ground of his religion. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed, so the unfair dismissal claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent did not breach the contract by failing to pay sums representing overtime during a period of suspension. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to payment representing notice. | 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.