Case 4100853/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Padam Singh v Reach Community Health Project — 2022
- Case reference
- 4100853/2022
- Decision date
- 13 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Hendry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Padam Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 5 May 2022, held via Cloud Video Platform, Employment Judge J Hendry considered claims by Mr Padam Singh and Mrs Salma Mohammed against Reach Community Health Project. The respondent did not attend and had not submitted an ET3. The tribunal recorded that there had been a defect in the original application, but that it was cured within a further period the tribunal considered reasonable, and the tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaints to have been presented before the end of the three-month period, so the claims were accepted.
The tribunal then made monetary awards on the substantive claims. Mr Singh was awarded £3,645 as a redundancy payment and £256 for accrued but unpaid holiday pay. Mrs Mohammed was awarded £927 as a redundancy payment and £209 for accrued but unpaid holiday pay. No other remedy was recorded in the judgment, and the combined total awarded was £5,037.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | First claimant, Mr Padam Singh. | Upheld | — | £3,645 |
| Holiday pay | First claimant, accrued but unpaid holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £256 |
| Redundancy | Second claimant, Mrs Salma Mohammed. | Upheld | — | £927 |
| Holiday pay | Second claimant, accrued but unpaid holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £209 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,037
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- not reasonably practicable
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.