Case 1602462/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Calu v Mr B Ramnath and others T/a The Ramnath Partnership — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602462/2020
- Decision date
- 16 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Cawthray Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Cardiff by video on 15 and 16 November 2021 before Employment Judge G Cawthray. The claimant, Mr V Calu, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Ramnath, a partner. The written judgment records that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's direct discrimination claim based on religion, together with his unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims. No separate remedy was awarded on any of those claims, and the written record does not set out the tribunal's substantive reasoning beyond the outcome recorded in the judgment.
The claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim was also dismissed because it had been presented out of time. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination (religion) was dismissed. The judgment record does not set out written reasons, noting that reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed. The written record does not contain the tribunal's full reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed. The written record does not contain the tribunal's full reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because it was presented out of time. | 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.