Case 3200973/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mohammad Jamal Uddin (formerly known as Mosarafh Ali) v Supersafe Security Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200973/2022
- Decision date
- 14 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
- Venue
- East London
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Mohammad Jamal Uddin (formerly known as Mosarafh Ali)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on 1 February 2022 because he had asked for correct pay and itemised pay statements. It held that this was an unfair dismissal under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that the respondents also dismissed him without giving two weeks of notice in breach of contract.
The tribunal found that the claimant was owed accrued untaken holiday for 1 January 2021 to 1 February 2021, and that he had suffered unauthorised deductions from wages where he was not paid for the hours he worked and for some sick pay. The tribunal limited recovery for wage deductions to deductions from 14 March 2020, and dismissed the furlough pay deduction claim because the claimant had not agreed to be furloughed.
The tribunal also found that the respondents breached their duty to provide itemised payslips. Remedy was not calculated in the judgment because the claimant's pay records needed to be recalculated, and the tribunal listed a further hearing for remedy.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because he asked for correct pay and itemised pay statements. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed without two weeks of notice in breach of contract. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant was not paid accrued untaken holiday for the period 1 January 2021 to 1 February 2021. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages relating to differences between hours worked and money paid, and failure to pay contractual and statutory sick pay. Recovery was limited to deductions from 14 March 2020 by section 23(4A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant did not suffer unlawful deductions from wages relating to furlough pay because he had not agreed to be furloughed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23(4A) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.