Case 2302722/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Shri-Giritharan v Menzies Aviation (UK) Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 2302722/2018
- Decision date
- 5 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cheetham QC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Shri-Giritharan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant alleged unauthorised deductions relating first to holiday pay for 30 and 31 March 2018. The tribunal found from the June payslip that he had been paid £131.49 for 13.5 hours at £9.74 per hour, recorded as overtime because that was the respondent's generic term for additional payments. The claimant accepted that this holiday pay had been received.
The claimant also referred to a later alleged holiday pay shortfall of about £5 in August, but the tribunal noted that this post-dated the claim form dated 20 July and was not part of the claim. The tribunal further considered alleged unpaid overtime for 20 March and 15 April 2018, and found from the documentation and the claimant's acceptance that no deductions had been made.
The tribunal concluded that there were no deductions at all and dismissed the claim as having no basis whatsoever. It also recorded that the respondent had sent a detailed letter of explanation dated 11 July before the claim was issued, addressing the matters later accepted at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes the claim as unauthorised deduction of wages. It included alleged non-payment of holiday pay and overtime, but the tribunal treated and dismissed it as a single unauthorised deduction claim. | 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.