Case 3201285/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Sundhu v East London Bus and Coach Co Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201285/2023
- Decision date
- 2 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs M Legg, Mr S Woodhouse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z Sundhu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at the East London Hearing Centre on 21, 22, 23 and 27 August 2024 before Employment Judge Crosfill with lay members Mrs M Legg and Mr S Woodhouse. The claimant was Mr Z Sundhu and the respondent was East London Bus and Coach Co Limited.
The tribunal dismissed all three claims. It found that the claim of unfair dismissal was not well founded. It also dismissed the claim that the respondent treated the claimant unlawfully by dismissing him contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. The claim for unlawful deduction from wages was also dismissed.
The judgment records no monetary award and does not set out any remedy findings. The only operative order is dismissal of the claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the claim was that the Respondent treated the Claimant unlawfully by dismissing him contrary to section 15 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.