Case 2217764/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Muhammad Tahir Islam v Ingredients, Supplements and Methods Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2217764/2024
- Decision date
- 2 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Muhammad Tahir Islam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to file an ET3. Having considered the ET1 and documents provided by the claimant, Employment Judge E Burns decided that the claim could properly be determined without a hearing under rule 21.
The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to pay the claimant wages between 1 January and 12 March 2024 and had also failed to pay one month's notice. The claimant was earning GBP 3,500 gross per month, and the respondent was ordered to pay GBP 11,899.92, less any required deductions for income tax or national insurance contributions.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages between 1 January and 12 March 2024, but does not split the total award between wages and notice pay. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay one month's notice, but does not split the total award between wages and notice pay. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,900
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.