Case 1405297/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Pattar v Amit Bangre Consulting Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1405297/2018
- Decision date
- 23 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Pattar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with four matters. The Employer's counterclaim was dismissed because it had been withdrawn by the Respondent. The Claimant also withdrew his holiday pay claim, which was dismissed on that basis.
The Claimant's claim for unlawful deduction of wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed as not well founded. By contrast, the breach of contract claim concerning notice pay succeeded.
Although the notice pay claim was well founded, the tribunal found that the Claimant had received pay exceeding the sums due as notice pay, so no compensation was awarded. The judgment records that the reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Employer's counterclaim was dismissed on its withdrawal by the Respondent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claimant's holiday pay claim was dismissed on its withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under s.13 ERA 1996 was found not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim succeeded in relation to notice pay, but the tribunal found the Claimant had already received pay exceeding the sums due, so no compensation was due. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- 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.