Case 2301625/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Ramaswamy v Arimon Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301625/2021
- Decision date
- 6 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Ramaswamy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 6 September 2022 before Employment Judge Self, the tribunal dealt with claims brought by Mr R Ramaswamy against Arimon Limited. The judgment records that the statutory redundancy payment claim and the race discrimination claim were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal also held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal, holiday pay, breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages claims. It found that it was reasonably practicable for those claims to have been presented within the relevant statutory time limit, and that the claimant failed to do so.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal dismissed this claim upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal dismissed this claim upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the relevant statutory time limit and it was not lodged in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the relevant statutory time limit and it was not lodged in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the relevant statutory time limit and it was not lodged in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the relevant statutory time limit and it was not lodged in time. | 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.