Case 1800741/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Ramgarhia Gurdwara Sikh Temple Bradford and others — 2023
- Case reference
- 1800741/2023
- Decision date
- 19 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr A Singh was employed as a Sikh priest at the Ramgarhia Gurdwara Sikh Temple Bradford from 15 August 2021 to 30 September 2022 under successive fixed-term contracts. It rejected his evidence that he worked 86 or 111 hours a week and preferred the respondents' witnesses and the contemporaneous documents, finding that his normal hours were 30 per week. The tribunal also found that he was paid fortnightly, that he could claim overtime when he worked more than his normal hours, and that his work fell within salaried hours work under the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015.
On the unlawful deduction from wages claim, the tribunal accepted the respondents' calculations that there had been six pay reference periods in which the claimant was paid below the National Minimum Wage, with the last underpayment in the week ending 21 January 2022 and a total shortfall of £432. It nevertheless held that the claim presented on 22 December 2022 was out of time under section 23 ERA 1996, that the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim earlier, and that the tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear it. The judgment also records a concession and later withdrawal of a concession about accommodation deductions, but no separate award was made on that basis.
The holiday pay claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant accrued about 6.4 weeks' holiday over his 59-week employment, had taken and been paid for three weeks, and was therefore entitled to 3.4 weeks of untaken leave on termination. Applying a net weekly pay figure of £271.16, it awarded £921.94. The claim that the respondents failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars failed because the tribunal found that the contract in force at the end of the employment contained the particulars required by section 1 ERA 1996.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Held out of time under section 23 ERA 1996 and outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. The judgment records six pay reference periods in which National Minimum Wage underpayments were admitted, totalling £432, with the last ending in the week of 21 January 2022. It also records a withdrawn concession concerning accommodation deductions of £2,018.87, but no separate award followed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had accrued 6.4 weeks' holiday over approximately 59 weeks, had taken and been paid for 3 weeks, and was therefore owed 3.4 weeks on termination. Using a net weekly rate of £271.16, it awarded £921.94 net. | Upheld | — | £922 |
| Other | The claim that the respondents failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars was rejected. The tribunal found that the contract in force when proceedings began contained the particulars required by section 1 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £922
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 23 ERA 1996 time limits
- not reasonably practicable
- section 13 ERA 1996 unlawful deductions
- section 28(2) NMWA 1998
- National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015 regulation 21
- National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015 regulation 44
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regulations 13, 13A and 14
- section 1 ERA 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.