Case 2201615/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Vijaya Lakshmi Tikkisetti Rao v Asisa Dental UK Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201615/2022
- Decision date
- 24 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation For
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Vijaya Lakshmi Tikkisetti Rao
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in London Central on 24 May 2022, before Tribunal Judge Plowright acting as an Employment Judge, the respondent did not appear and the claimant appeared in person. The written judgment records that the tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of arrears of pay and holiday pay, and ordered payment of gross sums of £2,500 and £3,828.55 respectively.
The tribunal also found that the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without notice and ordered payment of £5,416.67 gross for that claim. The judgment records a total gross award of £11,745.22. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as arrears of pay. | Upheld | — | £2,500 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £3,829 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded for dismissal without notice. | Upheld | — | £5,417 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,745
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.