Case 3200256/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ashwani Kumar v EEM London Ltd and 2 others — 2026
- Case reference
- 3200256/2025
- Decision date
- 10 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Representation
- Venue
- East London
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr Ashwani Kumar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that Mr Ashwani Kumar was employed as store manager at the Papa John’s establishment in Harlow from 1 February 2023. His employment began with EEM London Ltd, transferred to PJ Sahota during 2024 and then transferred to EEM Holdings Ltd, which was his employer when he was dismissed. His job and duties remained unchanged through those transfers.
The Tribunal found that Mr Kumar was dismissed on 25 January 2025 when he returned from authorised leave and reported for his usual shift. He had received no dismissal letter, notice or reason beforehand. He was offered work on a cash-in-hand basis, declined it, and was told that he no longer had a job. The Tribunal found that the reasons for dismissal were his refusal to work cash-in-hand and his insistence on itemised payslips, the proper treatment of tax and National Insurance, and his rights to take holidays and receive holiday pay. His dismissal was therefore automatically unfair under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for asserting statutory rights, notwithstanding that he had less than two years’ service.
The Tribunal also held that wages for work performed in December 2024 had been unlawfully deducted, that Mr Kumar had not been paid holiday pay during his employment, and that he had received neither notice of dismissal nor notice pay. The holiday-pay finding covered accrued leave in 2023 and 2024, including the holiday taken in January 2025.
Liability was determined at the hearing on 13 May 2026. The Tribunal held that Mr Kumar was entitled to remedies for his successful complaints but did not make a monetary award in this judgment; the amounts were reserved for a separate remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The dismissal was held automatically unfair under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the Claimant had asserted statutory rights concerning itemised payslips, statutory deductions, paid holidays and taking holidays. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint concerning unpaid wages for work performed in December 2024 was well-founded. Although the evidence included pay figures, the Tribunal reserved determination of the remedy to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The complaint of failure to pay notice pay was well-founded. The Claimant received no notice of dismissal or payment in lieu, and the remedy was reserved. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The Respondent failed to pay holiday pay for holidays accrued in 2023 and 2024, including leave taken in January 2025. The amount of the remedy was reserved to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.108(3)(g) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.104 Employment Rights Act 1996 (dismissal for asserting a statutory right)
- s.86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 16 Working Time Regulations 1989
- Regulations 3 and 4 TUPE Regulations 2006
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.