Case 2302403/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr T Benedek v Inder Jadula T/A SN Maintenance — 2021

Case reference: 2302403/2020
Decision date: 10 June 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ferguson Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr T Benedek

Respondent

Inder Jadula T/A SN Maintenance

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Issued under Rule 21, the judgment recorded that Inder Jadula T/A SN Maintenance had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr T Benedek's wages. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £7,168.29. The judgment also states that the claimant is responsible for any HMRC contributions in respect of payments owed.

The tribunal further found that Mr Benedek had not been given a written statement of particulars of employment under s.1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded £2,152.00 under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002. It also recorded that the respondent failed to give the claimant pay statements in accordance with s.8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The hearing listed for 12 July 2021 was cancelled.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £7,168.29. The judgment also states that the claimant is responsible for any HMRC contributions in respect of payments owed.	Upheld	—	£7,168
Other	The tribunal found that the claimant was not given a written statement of particulars of employment under s.1 ERA 1996 and awarded £2,152.00 pursuant to s.38 of the Employment Act 2002.	Upheld	—	£2,152
Other	The tribunal recorded that the respondent failed to give the claimant pay statements in accordance with s.8 ERA 1996. No separate monetary amount is stated for this finding in the judgment text.	Upheld	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £9,320; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.