Case 3313487/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Kucinskas v Maya Indian Cusine — 2020
- Case reference
- 3313487/2019
- Decision date
- 25 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Kucinskas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G Kucinskas presented claims on 2 April 2019 for unpaid wages, holiday pay and unfair dismissal. The respondent’s case was that he had gone absent without leave from 6 March 2019, had not been dismissed, and had been paid all wages due. The tribunal record notes that neither party attended the hearing on 25 February 2020 and neither was represented.
The tribunal referred to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and said it had considered the file and the available information about the parties' absence. It noted that there had been no communication with the tribunal office from either side since the claim form and response form were presented.
The judgment dismissed the claim. In relation to unfair dismissal, the reasons state that the claim was not accepted because the claimant did not have two years' qualifying employment. The judgment does not record any separate monetary award or any separate merits findings on the unpaid wages or holiday pay claims beyond dismissing the claim as a whole.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant said he was owed unpaid wages. The tribunal dismissed the claim in full after the claimant did not attend to prove the case; the respondent had said all wages owed had been paid. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant said he was owed holiday pay. The tribunal dismissed the claim in full after the claimant did not attend to prove the case; no separate monetary finding was recorded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant alleged unfair dismissal, but the tribunal said the claim was not accepted because he did not have two years' qualifying employment. The claim was then dismissed in full when the claimant did not attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.