Case 2601903/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Makhan Toor & 19 others (see attached schedule) v Oaktarget Garments Ltd (in administration) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2601903/2022
- Decision date
- 9 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Millns
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Makhan Toor & 19 others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe first respondent failed to submit a response to the claims, and the administrator consented to the claims proceeding. The tribunal heard evidence from Mr M Toor and considered the information before it, including submissions for the claimants and written submissions from the second respondent.
The tribunal found that the claimants worked at a single establishment where there was no recognised trade union. It found that the first respondent failed to organise the election of employee representatives and failed to consult with them in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of TULRCA.
The claimants' complaints under TULRCA section 189 were held to be well founded and succeeded. The first respondent was ordered to pay remuneration to each claimant listed in the schedule for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 4 May 2022, but the judgment stated that no financial award was made at this stage and individual awards must be quantified separately.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under TULRCA section 189. The tribunal made no financial award at this stage; it ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 4 May 2022, with quantification to be pursued separately if needed. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- sections 188 and 188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.