Case 2500451/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms S Shakeel First v RR Swami Ltd Second Respondent: Raj Mohan Swaminathan — 2023

Case reference: 2500451/2023
Decision date: 15 November 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Aspden
Venue: Middlesbrough
Panel members: Ms E Wiles, Mr S Wykes

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms S Shakeel First

Respondent

RR Swami Ltd Second Respondent: Raj Mohan Swaminathan

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal unanimously found well founded the claimant's complaints of an unlawful deduction from wages when the first respondent failed to pay an amount due under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, further unauthorised deductions from wages between September and November 2022, wrongful dismissal for termination without notice, unfair dismissal under s98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal under s92 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The first respondent was ordered to pay £12,503.02 in agreed sums: £2,696.80 damages for wrongful dismissal, a £269.68 uplift under s207A(2) TULR(C)A 1992, £3,047.31 for unlawful deductions including £570 holiday pay, a £304.73 uplift, £798 for two weeks' pay under s93, and £5,386.50 for unfair dismissal, described as a basic award only.

The Tribunal dismissed the claimant's s103A automatic unfair dismissal complaint and the s47B protected disclosure detriment complaints. It also dismissed the Equality Act 2010 disability discrimination complaints, and the age discrimination complaints were dismissed having been withdrawn by the claimant. The recoupment regulations did not apply.

Claims and outcomes

9 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Holiday pay	The claimant's complaint that the first respondent failed to pay an amount due to her under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well founded. The resulting unlawful deductions award was not split between this complaint and the later deductions complaint.	Upheld	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The claimant's complaint that the first respondent made further unauthorised deductions from her wages between September and November 2022 was well founded. The resulting unlawful deductions award was not split between this complaint and the regulation 14 holiday pay complaint.	Upheld	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	Damages for wrongful dismissal were agreed at £2,696.80 for termination without notice.	Upheld	—	£2,697
Unfair dismissal	The claimant's complaint under s98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded. The agreed unfair dismissal compensation comprised a basic award only.	Upheld	—	£5,387
Other	The claimant's complaint that the first respondent unreasonably failed to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal under s92 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded. Two weeks' pay was awarded under s93.	Upheld	—	£798
Whistleblowing	The claimant's complaint that her dismissal was unfair by virtue of s103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded and was dismissed.

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £12,503; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £5,387; statutory, unfair dismissal

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.