Case 3321016/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Amritpal Aggarwal v World Duty Free Group UK Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3321016/2019
- Decision date
- 22 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Chudleigh Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Amritpal Aggarwal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal at Reading, sitting by Cloud Video Platform on 22 February 2021 before Employment Judge Chudleigh, held that Amritpal Aggarwal’s complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded. The tribunal found that the claimant contributed to the dismissal by 50%, and it awarded compensation for unfair dismissal of £275.72, made up of a basic award of £62.86 and a compensatory award of £212.86.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been wrongfully dismissed by World Duty Free Limited. It ordered the respondent to pay damages for wrongful dismissal in the sum of £251.44.
The claimant’s complaint regarding an unlawful deduction of wages was found not well founded and was dismissed. The tribunal also recorded that the recoupment provisions did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well founded and reduced compensation because the claimant contributed 50% to the dismissal. | Upheld | — | £276 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was wrongfully dismissed and awarded damages in this sum. | Upheld | — | £251 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim regarding an unlawful deduction of wages was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £527
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £63
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £213
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.