Case 3201968/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Islam v Mondols Trading Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201968/2023
- Decision date
- 15 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Perry Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Islam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent’s name to Mondols Trading Limited. It heard the case at East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 15 February 2024 before Employment Judge T Perry, with Mr J Islam appearing in person and Mr M Tapash appearing for the respondent.
The claimant succeeded on two monetary claims. First, the tribunal found that the claim in respect of accrued untaken holiday pay was well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £306.60 gross, noting that the claimant may be liable to tax on that sum. Second, the tribunal found that the claim in respect of breach of contract regarding pay on bank holidays was well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £383.25 gross, again noting possible tax liability.
The judgment records no additional remedy components beyond those two gross sums. The total ordered by the tribunal is £689.85 gross.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim in respect of accrued untaken holiday pay was found well founded and succeeded; the tribunal ordered payment of £306.60 gross. | Upheld | — | £307 |
| Breach of contract | Claim in respect of pay on bank holidays was found well founded and succeeded; the tribunal ordered payment of £383.25 gross. | Upheld | — | £383 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £690
- 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.