Case 3325130/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Nilesh Kumar Joshi v Lumbini Restaurant Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3325130/2019
- Decision date
- 27 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Nilesh Kumar Joshi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present its response in time. The tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the unfair dismissal claim based on inadequate length of service. It found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded and ordered a basic award of £1,575 and a compensatory award of £38,724, applying the annual salary cap.
The tribunal also found the claim for accrued unpaid holiday well-founded and ordered payment of £5,907 net. It upheld the wrongful dismissal claim and ordered payment of £1,650 net, stating that this sum was to be deducted from the compensatory award. The claimant had not claimed state benefits, so the recoupment provisions did not apply. A costs application was listed to be heard on 28 September 2021.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal refused the respondent's strike-out application based on inadequate length of service. The remedy listed for this claim was a basic award of £1,575 and a compensatory award of £38,724. | Upheld | — | £40,299 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as accrued unpaid holiday pay, stated as £5,907 net. | Upheld | — | £5,907 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Awarded at £1,650 net and stated to be deducted from the compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £1,650 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £46,206
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,575
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £38,724
- 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.