Case 2304979/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Kumar v The Wok Restaurant Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304979/2020
- Decision date
- 2 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Kumar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting under Rule 21, found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages, and ordered payment of £4,150.48 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding damages of £3,461.54, and found that holiday entitlement had not been paid, awarding £2,301.37.
The unfair dismissal claim also succeeded, but the judgment did not fix the remedy. Instead, the tribunal stated that the remedy would be determined at a Remedy Hearing and converted the hearing listed for 27 August 2021 into a Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 payment of the gross sum stated. | Upheld | — | £4,150 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages in the stated sum. | Upheld | — | £3,462 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the stated sum. | Upheld | — | £2,301 |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim succeeded, but the remedy was to be determined at a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.