Case 1600715/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Webster v Pinel Rawal and Raj Rawal — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600715/2022
- Decision date
- 27 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Mason
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Webster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr Webster’s wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £720.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay Mr Webster in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment. It ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,414.20 for that claim.
In addition, the tribunal found that Mr Webster had a right to a redundancy payment and ordered payment of £5,940. The total monetary award on the face of the judgment was £8,074.20.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages and was ordered to pay the gross sum of £720. | Upheld | — | £720 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment and was ordered to pay the gross sum of £1,414.20. | Upheld | — | £1,414 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant had a right to a redundancy payment and ordered payment of £5,940. | Upheld | — | £5,940 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,074
- 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.