Case 3301780/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Hussain 3301780/2023 C1 Mr MA Mukith 3301781/2023 C2 Mr S Hussain 3301782/2023 C3 Mr MI Ali 3301783/2023 C4 Mr J Ahmed 3301784/2023 C5 v The Sauce Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301780/2023
- Decision date
- 8 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Hussain 3301780/2023 C1 Mr MA Mukith 3301781/2023 C2 Mr S Hussain 3301782/2023 C3 Mr MI Ali 3301783/2023 C4 Mr J Ahmed 3301784/2023 C5
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered a Rule 21 judgment in proceedings brought by five claimants against The Sauce Ltd. The claims by C2, C3, C4 and C5 were struck out because they were not being actively pursued, based on failure to respond to tribunal correspondence and information from C1 that those claimants were not seeking an employment tribunal judgment.
For C1, the tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages. The respondent was ordered to pay Mr Atif Hussain the gross sum of £9300, subject to any lawfully required PAYE deductions but without any other deduction or set off.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Rule 21 judgment states that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from C1's wages and orders payment of the gross sum of £9300. | Upheld | — | £9,300 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claims by C2, C3, C4 and C5 are struck out as not being actively pursued. The judgment does not give separate claim particulars for those claimants beyond the case category and Rule 21 decision. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,300
- 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.