Case 2223336/2024 · Employment Tribunal
MRS PALAK ROHANKUMAR DHOBI v Buckingham Dry Cleaners Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2223336/2024
- Decision date
- 26 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N. Clarke Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MRS PALAK ROHANKUMAR DHOBI
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at London Central by CVP on 18 and 19 November 2024 before Employment Judge N. Clarke, dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal as unfounded. It also dismissed the claims for unlawful deductions of wages as unfounded.
The judgment records that the claimant had intimated an allegation of "harassment", but the tribunal said this was not a claim under the Equality Act 2010 and was not a matter over which it had jurisdiction. That allegation was therefore dismissed on jurisdictional grounds rather than determined as a substantive equality claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claim for unfair dismissal was unfounded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claims for unlawful deductions of wages were unfounded and dismissed them. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records an allegation of harassment, but says it was not a claim under the Equality Act 2010 and was not within the tribunal's jurisdiction; it was accordingly dismissed. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.