Case 2201428/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Balla v Simit Sarayi UK Holdings Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201428/2019
- Decision date
- 3 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Grewal Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Balla
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard on 3 February 2020 at London Central before Employment Judge H Grewal. The claimant did not attend and there was no communication explaining his absence. The respondent was represented by Mr A Williams, solicitor.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant had failed to comply with two tribunal orders requiring a statement and schedules of loss. As a result, neither the respondent nor the tribunal knew what wages were said to be unpaid or how much holiday pay was claimed. The tribunal said it had no material before it that would assist in determining the claim in the claimant’s absence.
The judgment dismissed the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. No merits findings were made and no financial award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment says the tribunal did not know what wages the claimant said were unpaid and dismissed the claim under rule 47 after he failed to attend and failed to comply with orders to provide a statement and schedule of loss. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment says the tribunal did not know how much holiday pay was owing and dismissed the claim under rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend and failed to comply with orders to provide a statement and schedule of loss. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.