Case 2301176/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. MD Tanvir Rahman v Greggs plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301176/2021
- Decision date
- 1 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr. P. Adkins, Mrs. L. Lindsay
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. MD Tanvir Rahman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at London South before Employment Judge Sudra with two lay members, dismissed the claimant's claim of unfair dismissal, finding that it was not well founded.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's claims of direct race discrimination and direct religion and belief discrimination, each on the basis that they were not well founded.
The claimant's claims of unlawful deductions from wages were also dismissed as not well founded. The judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the applicable period.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the direct race discrimination claim was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment states that the direct religion and belief discrimination claim was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the unlawful deductions from wages claims were not well founded and were 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.