Case 1802307/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Muhammed Ramzan v Kashmir Crown Bakeries Limited This has been a remote hearing, by cloud video platform (V): A hearing in person was not practicable because of the present restrictions due to Covid 19. — 2020
- Case reference
- 1802307/2020
- Decision date
- 8 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely at Leeds on 8 October 2020 before Employment Judge D N Jones. The judgment records that all claims except the complaint in respect of holiday pay were dismissed upon withdrawal. It does not set out separate substantive findings on those withdrawn claims.
By consent, Kashmir Crown Bakeries Limited was ordered to pay Muhammed Ramzan £729.87 in respect of outstanding holiday pay. The judgment does not break that sum down further and records no other monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed upon withdrawal; the judgment does not set out separate substantive findings on this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed upon withdrawal; the judgment does not set out separate substantive findings on this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed upon withdrawal; the judgment does not set out separate substantive findings on this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The complaint in respect of holiday pay was well-founded and, by consent, the respondent was ordered to pay £729.87. | Upheld | — | £730 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £730
- 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.