Case 3310210/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Bhundia v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310210/2022
- Decision date
- 7 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Bhundia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent conceded that it had failed to pay the claimant for accrued leave not taken. By consent, the tribunal adjudged that the respondent must pay the claimant £2,424.00.
The claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, unfair dismissal because of trade union activities, disability discrimination and wrongful dismissal were found not well founded and were dismissed. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons available only on request.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the respondent conceded it failed to pay the claimant in respect of accrued leave not taken, and judgment was entered by consent for £2,424.00. | Upheld | — | £2,424 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Trade union | The judgment describes this as unfair dismissal because of trade union activities, and states it was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the disability discrimination complaint was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the wrongful dismissal complaint was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,424
- 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.