Case 3200678/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ahmad v Romano International Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200678/2020
- Decision date
- 9 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Ahmad
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard in public by telephone at East London Hearing Centre on 9 December 2020 before Employment Judge Moor. The claimant, Mr M Ahmad, appeared in person and the respondent, Romano International Limited, was represented by Mr J Singh, director.
The tribunal found that Mr Ahmad was not an employee or worker of the respondent within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that he was not an employee of the respondent within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear any of the claims brought.
All claims were therefore dismissed. No liability findings were made on the substance of the claims and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal held the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the discrimination claim. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claimant was not an employee or worker within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.