Case 3300394/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Zia v R P BEDI Ltd trading as COLAZ Southall — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300394/2023
- Decision date
- 20 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Zia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It recorded that by letter dated 9 February 2023 the claimant was given an opportunity to make representations, or request a hearing, on why that complaint should not be struck out because she had not completed two years' continuous service with the respondent and had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 9 February 2023.
The tribunal found that the claimant failed to make representations in writing, or failed to make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claim or claims remained listed for hearing. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out after the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 9 February 2023 to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out because she had not completed two years' continuous service and had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 9 February 2023. The claimant did not make sufficient written representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
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.