Case 2208918/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Chintamani Mamgain v Charcoal Concepts Limited t/a Copper Chimney Restaurants — 2024
- Case reference
- 2208918/2023
- Decision date
- 1 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grubb
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Chintamani Mamgain
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London Central by Employment Judge Grubb sitting alone on 16 and 17 April 2024. The claimant, Mr Chintamani Mamgain, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Roy. Judgment was given orally at the hearing and the written record was sent to the parties on 1 May 2024.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint. It said the complaint was not well-founded and that the respondent did not unfairly dismiss the claimant contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also dismissed the holiday pay claim, again describing it as not well-founded. No monetary award was made on either claim, and the judgment does not record any separate remedy calculation.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded and stated that the respondent did not unfairly dismiss the claimant contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.