Case 3305322/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Hajji F Talukder v Amrit Indian Restaurant — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305322/2024
- Decision date
- 10 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Hajji F Talukder
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It found that Hajji F Talukder had been employed by Amrit Indian Restaurant for less than two years, so he did not satisfy the qualifying service requirement for bringing an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not provide an acceptable reason. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment expressly states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision, so no determination was made on them in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.