Case 3304253/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mrs S KAUR (2) Mr S KUMAR (3) Mrs R KAUR v Hindu Cultural Society, Slough — 2022
- Case reference
- 3304253/2022
- Decision date
- 21 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mrs S KAUR (2) Mr S KUMAR (3) Mrs R KAUR
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It records that the claim was presented on 13 April 2022 and that the respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made in default.
The judgment states that the claims succeed. It does not set out separate factual findings on the merits of the individual causes of action, and it does not specify any award at this stage.
Remedy was not determined in this judgment. The tribunal recorded that the remedy to which the claimants are entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment was entered under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a valid response on time. The judgment records that the claims succeed, but it does not give separate merits findings or a separate remedy for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment was entered under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a valid response on time. The judgment records that the claims succeed, but it does not give separate merits findings or a separate remedy for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment was entered under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a valid response on time. The judgment records that the claims succeed, but it does not give separate merits findings or a separate remedy for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment was entered under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a valid response on time. The judgment records that the claims succeed, but it does not give separate merits findings or a separate remedy for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment was entered under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a valid response on time. The judgment records that the claims succeed, but it does not give separate merits findings or a separate remedy for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.