Case 2305248/2019 · Employment Tribunal
S Jaipuria v Ankoma Ltd (formally Arkatap Ltd) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2305248/2019
- Decision date
- 24 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Burge Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Jaipuria
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case at London South Employment Tribunal by CVP on 24 February 2021 before Employment Judge L Burge. The Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by its director, K Dabanka. The judgment records two claims: unfair dismissal under s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and unlawful deduction from wages.
The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. The Tribunal found that the Claimant lacked the qualifying service needed to bring that claim pursuant to s.108 ERA 1996. No dismissal merits finding is recorded, because the claim failed at the qualifying service stage.
The unlawful deduction from wages complaint succeeded. The Tribunal held that the Respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the Claimant's wages and ordered the Respondent to pay the gross sum of £2,000 in respect of the amount unlawfully deducted. No separate breakdown of the award is given beyond that sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Claimant lacked the qualifying service required to bring an unfair dismissal claim under s.108 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found that the Respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,000. | Upheld | — | £2,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.108 ERA 1996
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.