Case 3200825/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Babu v United Kitchen Concepts Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200825/2023
- Decision date
- 25 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Babu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal proceeded under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent had not presented a response and neither party attended the hearing. Employment Judge Gordon Walker made practicable enquiries about the claimant’s absence before determining the matter on the information available.
The tribunal upheld Mr A Babu’s claim for unauthorised deductions from wages against United Kitchen Concepts Limited. It relied on information provided in the claimant’s emails to the tribunal dated 2 September and 2 October 2023, which stated that he worked for 8.5 weeks, worked 20 hours per week, and had a gross hourly rate of £11.50.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant had not been paid any sums for the work he carried out and ordered the respondent to pay him the gross sum of £1,955. The judgment does not record any separate award breakdown beyond that gross amount.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,955. | Upheld | — | £1,955 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,955
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.