Case 4103312/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr. M Ramzan v Represented by: Ms. C Cochrane Solicitor New Strathaven Manzil Limited — 2021

Case reference: 4103312/2020
Decision date: 15 October 2021
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge B Beyzade

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr. M Ramzan

Respondent

Represented by: Ms. C Cochrane Solicitor New Strathaven Manzil Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr M Ramzan started work with Strathaven Manzil Limited on 1 October 2019 on oral terms, doing kitchen work including making pakoras and naan bread. The tribunal accepted his evidence about the oral agreement and relied on a 31 December 2019 payslip showing his hourly rate of £8.21 gross, weekly pay of £197.04, and monthly gross pay of £853.84. It found that Strathaven Manzil Limited was dissolved on 7 January 2020 and that his employment transferred that day to New Strathaven Manzil Limited. The respondent did not attend the final hearing and its response had previously been struck out. The tribunal also recorded that a separate complaint about itemised pay statements had been withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52 by judgment dated 24 August 2021.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	Claim for one week's notice pay after termination on 18 January 2020; tribunal found the claimant was entitled to one week's statutory notice under s.86 ERA 1996 and awarded £197.04 gross.	Upheld	—	£197
Other	Claim under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars; tribunal found no written terms had been issued and awarded two weeks' pay, £394.08.	Upheld	—	£394
Other	Complaint about failure to provide itemised pay statements; the tribunal recorded that it had been withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52 by judgment dated 24 August 2021.	Withdrawn	—	—
Transfer of undertakings (TUPE)	Complaint under TUPE Regulations 2006 for failure to inform and consult was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was not presented within the three-month time limit and the tribunal was not satisfied it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time. The tribunal said that, if timely, it would have found no information and consultation process and would have awarded 13 weeks' gross pay (£2,561.52).	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £591; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.