Mr A Hussain & others v Nabeel Ayaz Ditta and 1 other — 2022

The case was determined under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal and statutory redundancy payment complaints because all claimants had been employed for less than two years and so did not have the qualifying service required under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal declared that the Second Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages for all claimants except Mr Pranareddy Parnum, and the Schedule set out the individual sums payable. It also found that the Second Respondent had dismissed Mr Lewis Robinson in breach of contract and ordered payment of £454.41 gross in respect of notice pay. The judgment records that the wages-deduction complaints were dismissed against the First Respondent because the claimants said they were not employed by it.

The tribunal further found a failure to provide written statements of terms and conditions under s38 of the Employment Act 2002 and awarded compensation of two weeks' wages to the claimants listed in the Schedule, using the weekly pay figures described in the notes. Mr Pranareddy Parnum's compensation was left to be determined separately. Mr Arshal Hussain withdrew his age discrimination claim and his itemised pay statement complaint during the hearing on 14 October 2022, and the remaining claimants' claims on those issues, together with the accrued holiday pay claims, were left to continue under the case management orders dated 14 October 2022.