Case 2402437/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Nasim v Xydus Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402437/2024
- Decision date
- 3 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Nasim
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The judge concluded that a determination could properly be made on the claim on that basis.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £3,230.76. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued but untaken holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,144.23.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a total of £4,374.99. The judgment recorded that the claimant would be responsible for any tax liabilities arising on the gross award if tax was not deducted at source. A notice was attached under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 identifying 2 August 2024 as the relevant decision day, 3 August 2024 as the calculation day, and 8% as the stipulated rate of interest.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Award is gross. | Upheld | — | £3,231 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but untaken holiday entitlement not paid by the respondent. Determined under Rule 21. Award is gross. | Upheld | — | £1,144 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,375
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
- section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838
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.