Case 3306661/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Uddin v ARL Services (UK) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3306661/2018
- Decision date
- 25 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Appearances For
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Uddin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr M Uddin was unfairly dismissed by ARL Services (UK) Limited. The judgment records a liability finding only and does not set out the underlying reasons in written form, because written reasons were not provided unless requested. The hearing took place on 17 and 18 November 2020 and 23 and 24 August 2021 before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto.
The tribunal also found that the claimant contributed to his dismissal. On that basis, it ordered that both the basic award and the compensatory award would be reduced by 60%. The decision directed the claimant to disclose remedy documents, including mitigation documents such as offers of employment, letters of dismissal, contracts of employment and payslips, by 27 September 2021.
No monetary award was calculated in this judgment. Instead, the case was to be relisted for a remedy hearing on a date to be notified to the parties, and the judgment stated that the case would not be listed before 25 October 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It also found that the claimant contributed to his dismissal and directed that the basic award and compensatory award be reduced by 60%. The case was relisted for a separate remedy hearing, so no monetary figure was quantified in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
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.