Case 3305644/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Muhammad Moiz Khan v Gravitilab Aerospace Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305644/2024
- Decision date
- 11 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Muhammad Moiz Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £2,500.00 (subject to tax and National Insurance). It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £173.08 on the same basis.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice pay, and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £2,500.00 (subject to tax and National Insurance). The judgment records a total sum payable of £5,173.08, subject to tax and National Insurance.
The judgment as supplied is a short outcome document signed by Employment Judge Alliott on 11 November 2024 and sent to the parties on 23 December 2024; it does not set out reasons, legal tests, or panel composition beyond the named judge.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award subject to tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £2,500 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment awards £173.08 for unpaid holiday entitlement, subject to tax and National Insurance. Integer rounded from £173.08. | Upheld | — | £173 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for notice pay; dismissed in breach of contract. Subject to tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £2,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,173
- across all upheld claims
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.