Case 3303933/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Viruthasalam v Dr. Rimi Mukherjee And Dr. Mousumi Mukherjee Trading As Oxgate Gardens Surgery — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303933/2024
- Decision date
- 5 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Viruthasalam
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Quill, sitting alone at Watford on 12 December 2024, found that the Respondent had failed to make the correct payment in lieu of unused holiday entitlement on termination, that a deduction of £349.58 from the Claimant's wages on 28 January 2024 described as 'Nov AL deduction' was unauthorised, and that there had been a national minimum wage underpayment of £30.18 which the Respondent accepted. No further payment was ordered in respect of those three matters because the Respondent had paid £379.76 in late September 2024, which the Claimant accepts fully resolved them.
The Tribunal also found a further unauthorised deduction of £354.95 covering five specified days at £70.99 per day, and ordered the Respondent to pay that gross sum. In addition, the Tribunal made an award of two weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, amounting to £709.90.
The complaint that sums shown on payslips as 'Ee Pension' were unauthorised deductions from wages was dismissed: the Claimant had authorised the employer to make deductions for the Employee NHS Pension Contribution and failed to prove the Respondent had acted outside that authorisation. Claims about the Employer Pension Contribution to the NHS Pension fund were held to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and outside the definition of 'wages' in section 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
7 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 | Unauthorised deduction of £349.58 on 28 January 2024 described as 'Nov AL deduction'. No further payment ordered for this item because the Respondent paid £379.76 in late September 2024, which the Claimant accepts fully resolves this deduction together with the holiday pay shortfall and NMW underpayment. | Upheld | — | £349 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the Respondent failed to make the correct payment in lieu of unused holiday entitlement on termination. No further payment ordered as the £379.76 paid in September 2024 fully resolved this together with the unauthorised deduction and NMW underpayment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Respondent accepted a national minimum wage underpayment of £30.18. Resolved by the £379.76 payment in September 2024; no further sum ordered for this item. | Upheld | — | £30 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction of £354.95 relating to 5 days (5 Sept 2023, 8 Sept 2023, 9 Oct 2023, 11 Oct 2023, 1 Nov 2023) at £70.99 per day. Respondent ordered to pay the gross sum of £354.95. | Upheld | — | £355 |
| Other | Award of two weeks' pay under section 38 Employment Act 2002 (failure relating to written statement of particulars). Respondent ordered to pay £709.90. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,065
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.