Case 3313201/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Athwal v AZ Luxe Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3313201/2022
- Decision date
- 2 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bansal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Athwal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford by CVP on 18 August 2023 before Employment Judge Bansal sitting alone. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent, AZ Luxe Ltd, was represented by its director, Mr Abbas Zadeh.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims for wrongful dismissal, unpaid holiday pay, and bonus payment were well founded and succeeded. No further written reasons are provided in the record beyond the oral judgment noted on the face of the decision.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a total of £2,765.46 net. That total was broken down as one month's notice pay of £2,177.40 net, 7 days' accrued holiday pay of £508.06 net, and an outstanding bonus payment of £80.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Awarded as one month’s notice pay, described as net. | Upheld | — | £2,177 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as 7 days accrued holiday pay, described as net. | Upheld | — | £508 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as an outstanding bonus payment; the written record does not further label the legal basis for this head. | Upheld | — | £80 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,765
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.