Case 1802940/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Srivastava v Moors Burger Trading Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1802940/2022
- Decision date
- 22 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Srivastava
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Leeds Employment Tribunals on 2 September 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Bright determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal declared that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It ordered payment of £1,502.33 gross in respect of wages from May 2022 and £988.75 gross in respect of accrued holiday days, giving a total of £2,491.08 on the wages claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent was in breach of contract by failing to reimburse the claimant’s agreed expenses. It awarded damages of £97.83 for that claim. The judgment records no additional remedy components beyond those sums.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deductions finding covered gross sums for wages from May 2022 (£1,502.33) and accrued holiday days (£988.75). | Upheld | — | £2,491 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a breach of contract for failure to reimburse agreed expenses. | Upheld | — | £98 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,589
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.