Case 3320747/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Avtar Jhamat T/a Sunrise Glazing (London) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3320747/2019
- Decision date
- 17 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Santinder Battoo, was employed by the respondent from 21 February 2019 to 14 March 2019 and was to be paid £2,000 per month gross. The tribunal found that he had not been paid for three weeks' work, which it calculated at £1,500 gross, and that he had also incurred £86 expenses.
On that basis, the tribunal held that there had been an unauthorised deduction from wages and expenses in the gross sum of £1,586. The judgment records that the respondent did not attend, that no response had been presented, and that the tribunal proceeded under rule 21 on the material available.
The claimant told the tribunal that he did not want to bring a whistleblowing claim, so no whistleblowing claim was determined in the judgment. The only substantive claim adjudicated was the unlawful deduction of wages and expenses claim, which succeeded and resulted in an order for the respondent to pay £1,586 gross.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the claimant had not been paid for three weeks' work and also incurred £86 expenses, making the gross unpaid sum £1,586. | Upheld | — | £1,586 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,586
- 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.