Case 3315274/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ajantha Samaranayake v T G Ram Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3315274/2022
- Decision date
- 25 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rakhim
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ajantha Samaranayake
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ajantha Samaranayake was an employee of T G Ram Limited, not merely a worker. It accepted that the parties had agreed a permanent role on a six-month probation, paid at £36,000 per year in monthly instalments, for three days per week with 28 days' annual leave. Although no written contract had been issued, the tribunal relied on the oral evidence, contemporaneous emails, pension enrolment and other documents, and preferred the claimant's evidence over Mr Tilvar's inconsistent account.
On dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed on 12 September 2022 for asserting statutory rights. It found that the 9 September 2022 email, together with the earlier 5 and 7 September exchanges, showed the claimant was complaining about August pay, holiday pay and the lack of written particulars. The tribunal rejected the respondent's case that the dismissal was for poor performance, and found that the performance explanation was not supported by contemporaneous evidence. It therefore upheld the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.104 ERA 1996.
The tribunal also upheld the wage claims. It found an unlawful deduction of £3,000 gross for August 2022 salary, because the claimant was entitled to monthly pay and there was no agreement to withhold that month's wages. It separately upheld the holiday pay claim and calculated a gross balance of £1,077.52 after allowing for the amount already paid on the September 2022 payslip. The tribunal further found a breach of s.1 ERA 1996 for failure to provide written particulars and awarded £2,284 gross, being four weeks' pay under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002.
For wrongful dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to one week's notice under s.86 ERA 1996 and that no notice had been paid. It rejected the evidence that the parties had mutually agreed that notice was unnecessary, and awarded £692.31 gross. On the unfair dismissal remedy, the tribunal assessed past loss of earnings at £13,520 net, pension loss at £405.60 and applied a 25% ACAS uplift of £3,481.40, producing a compensatory award of £17,407 net. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 applied, the prescribed element was £17,407, and the total award was £24,460.83 with a balance of £7,053.83 before recoupment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.104 ERA 1996. The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal on 12 September 2022 was that the claimant had asserted statutory rights about August pay and written particulars. No contributory fault or Polkey reduction was applied, and a 25% ACAS uplift was made. | Upheld | — | £17,407 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross deduction for August 2022 salary. The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to monthly pay under the agreed employment terms and no agreement to withhold August pay was shown. | Upheld | — | £3,000 |
| Holiday pay | Gross balance for accrued but untaken holiday on termination. The tribunal accepted 7.9 days' entitlement, applied a daily rate of £230.77, and deducted £745.56 already paid. | Upheld | — | £1,078 |
| Other | Breach of s.1 ERA 1996 for failure to provide written particulars. The tribunal made the higher Employment Act 2002 s.38 award of four weeks' pay, finding it just and equitable in the circumstances. | Upheld | — | £2,284 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice pay awarded on the basis of one week's statutory notice under s.86 ERA 1996. The tribunal did not accept that notice had been waived or mutually dispensed with. | Upheld | — | £692 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £24,461
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £17,407
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.230 ERA employee status
- Ready Mixed Concrete
- Quashie v Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd
- Carmichael v National Power plc
- Cotswold Developments Construction Ltd v Williams
- Uber v Aslam
- s.104 ERA
- Derbyshire v Davis and anor t/a Samuel Davis
- s.13 ERA
- s.1 ERA
- ss.38(2)-(5) Employment Act 2002
- s.86 ERA
- Baldwin v British Coal Corporation
- s.123 ERA
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.