Case 3201278/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Vinayak Pawale v FAMS Group Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3201278/2024
- Decision date
- 23 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Vinayak Pawale
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Vinayak Pawale, brought claims of unlawful deduction of wages and notice pay against FAMS Group Ltd, his employer from 4 May 2022 to 10 April 2024. The hearing took place at the East London Hearing Centre on 23 April 2025 before Regional Employment Judge Burgher. The claimant appeared in person; the respondent did not attend.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had not been paid his salary for February or March 2024, nor his outstanding notice pay for the period 1 to 10 April 2024. Both claims succeeded against the respondent.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,064 in unpaid wages for February 2024, £2,064 in unpaid wages for March 2024, and unpaid notice pay for 1 to 10 April 2024, giving a total award of £4,816. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will only be provided on request.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages for February 2024 (£2,064) and March 2024 (£2,064). | Upheld | — | £4,128 |
| Breach of contract | Unpaid notice pay for 1-10 April 2024. Amount not separately itemised in the judgment; included within the total award of £4,816. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,816
- across all upheld claims
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.