Case 2305405/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Khanna v Home Office Border Force CORRECTED — 2020
- Case reference
- 2305405/2019
- Decision date
- 9 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Khanna
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response had been entered by the respondent. The tribunal therefore recorded that the claims succeeded on the papers and found that Mr S Khanna was unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal also found that he was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from his wages, and that the respondent had failed to pay his holiday entitlement. No remedy was assessed in this judgment because the tribunal stated that the remedy would be determined at a later Remedy Hearing, to be notified to the parties in due course.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.