Case 3201072/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mohammed Ijaz Nellikkunnu Ashraf v Sinomax International Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 3201072/2024
- Decision date
- 17 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Povey Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mohammed Ijaz Nellikkunnu Ashraf
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages and discrimination on grounds of religion against his former employer. The wages complaint concerned a single deduction from wages on 8 December 2023, and the religion discrimination complaint concerned a request for time off to attend Friday prayers which was refused on 20 September 2023.
The tribunal proceeded in the claimant's absence after noting that he had not provided evidence or submissions on the respondent's strike-out application, had not attended the hearing, and had not applied for a postponement or explained his absence. It found both complaints were out of time and that ACAS Early Conciliation did not assist because it began after the statutory time limits had expired.
The tribunal found there was no explanation, evidence, or submissions from the claimant on why the wages complaint could not reasonably practicably have been presented in time or why the discrimination complaint should be treated as presented within a just and equitable period. It concluded that it had no jurisdiction to determine either complaint and struck both out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint was presented out of time, it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, the tribunal had no jurisdiction, and it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal found the complaint of discrimination on grounds of religion was presented out of time and not within such other period as was just and equitable; it therefore had no jurisdiction and the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- sections 23(2), 23(3A) and 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123(1) Equality Act 2010
- section 123(3)(a) Equality Act 2010
- Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan [2005] EWCA Civ. 470
- Bexley Community Centre (t/a Leisure Link) v Robertson [2003] EWCA Civ. 576
- Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2024] EAT 2
- Polystar Plastic Ltd v Liepa [2023] EAT 100
- Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust [2022] EAT 132
- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 41(1) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.