Case 2405567/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Lukasz Maj v Tech Mahindra Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2405567/2022
- Decision date
- 14 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Lukasz Maj
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, the tribunal was able to make a determination of the claim without a defended response from the respondent.
The tribunal found that Tech Mahindra had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay Lukasz Maj the gross sum of £899.63.
The accompanying interest notice stated that interest would be payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the sum was not paid in full within 14 days of the written record of the decision being sent to the parties. The notice gave 14 October 2022 as the relevant decision day, 15 October 2022 as the calculation day, and 8% per annum as the stipulated rate of interest.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £900 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £900
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.