Case 2405699/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Zahir Khan v Café Aylanto Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2405699/2021
- Decision date
- 30 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clarke
- Venue
- Manchester Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Zahir Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Zahir Khan's claims against Café Aylanto Ltd were heard by Employment Judge Clarke sitting alone at Manchester by CVP on 27 July 2021. The tribunal held that his unlawful deduction claim for unpaid holiday pay failed, but that his unlawful deduction claim for unpaid wages before dismissal succeeded.
On the successful unlawful deduction claim, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £600 gross. The award was calculated by reference to five days, 4 to 8 January 2021 inclusive, at £120 gross per day.
The tribunal also found that the respondent breached contract by dismissing the claimant without notice. It ordered £2,279.33 net for one month's notice, calculated by reference to a salary of £526 net per week. The written judgment notes a Rule 69 correction to the oral judgment figure.
The judgment does not record any discrimination or other protected-characteristic claim. A separate notice on interest accompanied the judgment, but it does not state any additional sum awarded in this case.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant's section 13(1) ERA 1996 unlawful deduction claim in respect of unpaid holiday pay was unfounded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant's section 13(1) ERA 1996 unlawful deduction claim in respect of unpaid wages before dismissal was well founded and awarded £600 gross for five days at £120 per day, covering 4 to 8 January 2021. | Upheld | — | £600 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the respondent breached contract by dismissing the claimant without notice and ordered £2,279.33 net for one month's notice at £526 net per week; the written judgment records a Rule 69 correction to the oral judgment figure. | Upheld | — | £2,279 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,879
- across all upheld claims
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.