Case 2401492/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J H Minhas v Saladishy Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2401492/2023
- Decision date
- 18 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J H Minhas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided the claim could properly be determined under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No factual defence was recorded in the judgment beyond that default position.
The tribunal upheld the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £75 gross and £258.78 net, and stated that the award was part gross and part net. The claimant was told that he would be responsible for any tax liabilities arising from the gross award if tax was not deducted at source, while liability for tax from the net figures would remain with the respondent.
The tribunal also upheld the claim relating to untaken annual leave. It found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued untaken annual leave entitlement of 3.1 days and ordered payment of £310 gross. The judgment was followed by a standard interest notice stating that interest would be payable if the award remained unpaid after 14 days from the relevant decision day, but the judgment itself did not quantify any separate interest amount.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of £75 gross and £258.78 net; the judgment says the award was part gross and part net. | Upheld | — | £334 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay accrued untaken annual leave entitlement of 3.1 days. | Upheld | — | £310 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £644
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.