Case 3201440/2024 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Ms Roshani Chand (2) Ms Kanchan Nakarmi (3) Mr Aman Sharma v S Boi Limited (Company number 15185439) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201440/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Ms Roshani Chand (2) Ms Kanchan Nakarmi (3) Mr Aman Sharma
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe final hearing took place on 12 December 2024 at East London Hearing Centre by CVP before Employment Judge B Beyzade. Ms Roshani Chand and Mr Aman Sharma attended in person, while Ms Kanchan Nakarmi and the respondent did not attend and were not represented. Because the second claimant and the respondent were absent and had not otherwise communicated with the tribunal, the tribunal dismissed the second claimant's claim under Rule 47 and proceeded to determine the first and third claimants' claims.
The tribunal dismissed the first and third claimants' redundancy payment claims because they had not been continuously employed for at least two years, as required by section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also dismissed the first and third claimants' complaints relating to other payments after those complaints were withdrawn, under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
In default of a Response and under Rule 21, the tribunal upheld Ms Chand's breach of contract claim and awarded £1,200, and upheld her unlawful deduction claims for holiday pay and wage arrears, awarding £1,458.60 and £2,942.72 respectively, subject to any required deductions for tax and national insurance. It also upheld Mr Sharma's breach of contract claim and awarded £1,030, and upheld his unlawful deduction claims for holiday pay and wage arrears, awarding £440 and £1,230.25 respectively, subject to any required deductions for tax and national insurance. The total of the monetary awards was £8,301.57.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The second claimant's claim was dismissed under Rule 47 after neither the second claimant nor the respondent attended the final hearing; the extracted text does not specify the underlying claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The first and third claimants' redundancy payment claims were dismissed because they had not been continuously employed for at least two years, pursuant to section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The first and third claimants' complaints relating to other payments were withdrawn and dismissed under Rule 52. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Ms Roshani Chand was found to have been dismissed in breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £1,200 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ms Roshani Chand: unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £1,459 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Ms Roshani Chand: unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of wage arrears. | Upheld | — | £2,943 |
| Breach of contract |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,302
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 47 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 52 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.