Case 2213559/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Mahmood & Mr Nauman Ejaz v I-Guard Security Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2213559/2023
- Decision date
- 14 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Mahmood & Mr Nauman Ejaz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, I-Guard Security Ltd, presented no response to either claim, despite service of the claims and a further email from the tribunal to an email address provided by the claimants asking whether the respondent was defending the claims. There was no reply. Employment Judge Baty therefore determined the claims in the respondent’s absence under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013.
The tribunal found that the claimants’ complaints of unlawful deduction from wages succeeded. It made separate gross awards to each claimant for unpaid hours at £13.50 per hour: £1,147.50 to Mr R Mahmood for 85 hours and £729 to Mr Nauman Ejaz for 54 hours. The judgment did not record any other heads of claim or any additional remedy beyond those wage awards.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim by Mr R Mahmood succeeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. Award: £1,147.50 gross for 85 unpaid hours at £13.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £1,148 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim by Mr Nauman Ejaz succeeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. Award: £729 gross for 54 unpaid hours at £13.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £729 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,877
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 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.