Case 1400941/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Manmeet Singh Saini v Tata Consultancy Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400941/2020
- Decision date
- 8 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. M.
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Manmeet Singh Saini
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis written judgment records interlocutory decisions only. At a hearing in Bristol by CVP on 2 February 2021 before Employment Judge Mr. M. Salter, the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The tribunal allowed the claimant's application to amend his claim to include complaints of constructive unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and payment for accrued but untaken holiday pay.
The tribunal also refused the respondent's application for a deposit order. In the same record, it stated that the applicable law, subject to no-derogable rights, was the law applicable to contracts of employment signed in New Delhi and any relevant Indian federal laws. The written judgment does not record a final merits determination on the substantive employment claims or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal did not decide the merits of this complaint in the written judgment. It allowed the claimant's amendment application to add this complaint to the case. | Other | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal did not decide the merits of this complaint in the written judgment. It allowed the claimant's amendment application to add this complaint to the case. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal did not decide the merits of this complaint in the written judgment. It allowed the claimant's amendment application to add a claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay. | Other | — | — |
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.