Case 3304742/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Yash Jangid v Lidl Great Britain RECORD OF A PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304742/2024
- Decision date
- 13 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Yash Jangid
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe public preliminary hearing determined whether the claim was presented in time. The tribunal recorded claims coded as unauthorised deduction of wages and Working Time Regulations complaints concerning weekly or night working time or rest breaks. It also considered any Equality Act 2010 claims, noting that the claimant had alleged harassment and discrimination but had not identified a protected characteristic in the claim form, and that he indicated at the hearing that he thought the discrimination claim would be on the basis of race.
The tribunal found that the claimant resigned on 10 September 2023 and received a revised final payslip on 30 October 2023. After allowing for Acas early conciliation, the relevant presentation deadlines were 20 January 2024 for the working time and Equality Act matters and 11 March 2024 for the wages claim. The claim was presented on 8 May 2024.
The tribunal did not accept the claimant's explanations for the delay, including periods spent in India, job searching, financial hardship, attempts to resolve matters with Lidl, and claimed ignorance of the three-month time limit. It found that the Employment Rights Act and Working Time Regulations claims could reasonably practicably have been brought in time, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time for any Equality Act 2010 claims. The claims were struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the unauthorised deduction of wages claim was not brought in time, that it was reasonably practicable to bring it in time, and that there was no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal described this as a failure to limit weekly or night working time or to ensure rest breaks, and found it was not brought in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant had not ticked protected characteristic boxes, but indicated at the hearing that he thought his discrimination claim would be on the basis of race. The tribunal approached the hearing on that basis and struck out any Equality Act 2010 claims as out of time. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | The claim form alleged harassment and discrimination, but the protected characteristic was unclear. The tribunal treated any Equality Act 2010 claims as out of time and struck them out. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Section 123 Equality Act 2010
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
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.