Case 2402080/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Zain ul Abidin v So Echo Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402080/2024
- Decision date
- 25 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Zain ul Abidin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued by Employment Judge M Butler. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,153.80. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued but untaken annual leave entitlement on termination of employment, and ordered payment of the gross sum of £538.45, calculated using a weekly wage of £538.45 derived from the figures in the claim form (£2,333 monthly pay x 12 / 52).
No award was made for unfair dismissal or redundancy because, according to the claim form, the claimant did not have the necessary qualifying service of two years. The claimant was given the opportunity to make representations in writing or request a hearing as to why those claims could proceed but did not respond, and those claims were struck out.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the total gross sum of £2,692.25. A standard interest notice under Article 12 of the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 was attached, recording a relevant decision day of 25 October 2024 and the stipulated rate of 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,153.80. | Upheld | — | £2,154 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent failed to pay accrued but untaken annual leave entitlement on termination; weekly wage calculated as £2,333 x 12 / 52 = £538.45. | Upheld | — | £538 |
| Unfair dismissal | No award made because, according to the claim form, the claimant did not have the necessary qualifying service of two years. The claimant was given the opportunity to make representations or request a hearing but failed to respond; the claim was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out together with the unfair dismissal claim for the same reason: the claimant did not have the necessary qualifying service of two years and did not respond to the opportunity to make representations. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,692
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
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.