Case 3305177/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Darman Singh Rawat v Arena Lounge UK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305177/2024
- Decision date
- 14 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wilson Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Darman Singh Rawat
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, employed as Head Chef by the Respondent restaurant from 31 August 2020, left work without notice on 4 February 2024 following a dispute over an outstanding loan made to him by the Respondent and over pay. The Tribunal first considered jurisdiction and accepted that it was not reasonably practicable for the Claimant, who has limited English and relied on his son for assistance, to present his claim in time, and that the claim was presented within a further reasonable period; the application for an extension of time therefore succeeded.
On the substantive claims, the Tribunal found that the signed Contract of Employment permitted the Respondent to deduct sums owed, including outstanding loans, from the Claimant's salary, and that the Claimant had been on notice from a December 2023 meeting that this clause would be applied. The Tribunal rejected the Claimant's assertion that the contract had been falsified. It concluded that there was no repudiatory breach by the Respondent and that the Claimant's decision to leave on 4 February 2024 was his own choice, so the constructive unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims were not well-founded and were dismissed.
On Holiday Pay, the parties agreed that the Claimant had taken no holiday in 2023 or 2024 and had received no Holiday Pay. While the Tribunal accepted that the Respondent's policy was not to carry leave over save at its discretion, it held that the Holiday Pay for the 2023-2024 leave year fell to be paid on termination under the Working Time Regulations, and that claim succeeded, with quantum to be resolved at the listed Remedy Hearing if not agreed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Tribunal found no repudiatory breach by the Respondent; the Claimant's resignation by walking out on 4 February 2024 was his own choice and could not be construed as a dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the contract permitted the Respondent to deduct the Claimant's January and February salary to recoup an unpaid loan; no breach of contract by the Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday Pay for the 2023-2024 period fell to be paid on termination under the Working Time Regulations. Quantum to be resolved at the listed Remedy Hearing on 2 September 2025 if not agreed between the parties. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] IRLR 271
- Tesco Stores Ltd v Kayani UKEAT/0128/16
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372
- Working Time Regulations
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.