Case 3313015/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Peixoto v Mr Atul Khosla — 2021
- Case reference
- 3313015/2021
- Decision date
- 20 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Peixoto
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered a Rule 21 judgment because the Respondent did not enter a response. It upheld the Claimant's claims for unlawful deductions from wages and accrued holiday pay. The judgment identified the Claimant as Mr J Peixoto and the Respondent as Mr Atul Khosla.
On wages, the tribunal found that in April 2021 the Claimant worked 145 hours but was paid for only 119.84 hours, receiving £1,038.77 net. That left a deficit of 25.16 hours, which at a net hourly rate of £8.67 produced an award of £218.13. For May 2021, the tribunal found that the Claimant worked 98.5 hours and was not paid at all, producing an award of £854. The total award for unpaid wages was therefore £1,072.13.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the Claimant was entitled to 5.6 weeks' statutory annual leave per year and had worked from 12 April 2021 to 14 May 2021, a period of 32 days. It calculated that this accrued 0.49 weeks' leave. Using the net weekly pay figure of £469.09, derived from £2,110.90 over 4.5 weeks, the tribunal awarded £229.85 for accrued untaken annual leave.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment entered because the Respondent did not file a response. The tribunal found unpaid wages of £218.13 for April 2021 and £854 for May 2021, totalling £1,072.13. | Upheld | — | £1,072 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the Claimant accrued 0.49 weeks' untaken statutory annual leave during employment from 12 April to 14 May 2021, and awarded £229.85 for accrued holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £230 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,302
- 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.