Case 3314970/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A. Puthiyaveettil v ZeeDee Global Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3314970/2023
- Decision date
- 8 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A. Puthiyaveettil
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A. Puthiyaveettil brought a claim against ZeeDee Global Ltd for unpaid wages, described in the reasons as arrears of pay totalling just under £800. The case was listed for a hearing on 13 February 2025, converted from an in-person hearing to a CVP hearing, and the tribunal had previously sent the joining link to the parties.
On the morning of the hearing, the claimant asked for the case to be rescheduled to the end of the month because he had a prior scheduled appointment. He gave no further detail, and the Regional Employment Judge refused the postponement request. Neither party attended the hearing, and neither had complied with directions to file a bundle of documents or witness statements.
Employment Judge McNeill KC considered whether the claim should be dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. The judge noted that the claimant had only notified the tribunal a few hours before the listed start time and had not explained why the application to postpone was made so late or what the appointment was. The documents on the tribunal file were not enough, by themselves, to support the claim, so the claim for unpaid wages was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was for unpaid wages (arrears of pay) in the total sum of just under £800. It was dismissed after the claimant did not attend the hearing and the tribunal found the file documents did not, on their own, enable the claim to be upheld. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
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.