Case 2301068/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Chowdhury v CRN Contract Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301068/2022
- Decision date
- 29 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Chowdhury
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 2 August 2022, before Tribunal Judge Milivojevic acting as an Employment Judge, the tribunal gave oral reasons and later issued a short written record. It found that Mr M Chowdhury’s wrongful dismissal claim against CRN Contract Services was well founded and awarded him £150 gross. The judgment states that the sum was to be paid gross, with Mr Chowdhury to account to HMRC for any deductions arising from the payment.
The tribunal also found that Mr Chowdhury’s claim for payment in respect of accrued but untaken annual leave allowance at the date of termination was well founded. It awarded £87 gross for that claim, again stating that the payment was to be made gross and that Mr Chowdhury would be responsible for accounting to HMRC for any deductions. No separate broader remedy assessment is recorded beyond these two sums, and no discrimination or whistleblowing issues appear in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the wrongful dismissal claim well founded and awarded £150 gross. | Upheld | — | £150 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claim for accrued but untaken annual leave allowance at the date of termination well founded and awarded £87 gross. | Upheld | — | £87 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £237
- 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.