Case 3312343/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Umradia v Department of Transport — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312343/2019
- Decision date
- 20 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr M Bhatti MBE, Mr T Maclean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Umradia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr H Umradia was unfairly dismissed and said the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded. It recorded that there would be no Polkey deduction and that there should be a 33% deduction for contributory fault, applied to both the basic and compensatory award.
The race discrimination complaint failed and was dismissed. The victimisation complaint also failed and was dismissed; the judgment describes this as victimisation based on the protected acts of another person.
The decision was issued on 20 May 2022 after a hearing at Watford from 16 to 19 May 2022 before Employment Judge Quill, Mr M Bhatti MBE and Mr T Maclean. The tribunal listed a remedy hearing for 3 and 4 October 2022, so the judgment does not record the final monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint well-founded and held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It recorded no Polkey deduction and a 33% deduction for contributory fault, to be applied to both basic and compensatory award. A remedy hearing was listed for 3 and 4 October 2022. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint of race discrimination failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The complaint of victimisation, said to be based on the protected acts of another person, failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Polkey deduction
- contributory fault
- unfair dismissal
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.
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.