Case 4104631/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v H Singh Randhawa T/a Italia Express — 2020
- Case reference
- 4104631/2020
- Decision date
- 28 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Muriel Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, and Employment Judge Muriel Robison issued judgment on the available material under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £17,663.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £584.93. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to supply a basic statement of terms and conditions and ordered payment of £2,136.
A further finding was that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement, with an award of £2,263.67. The monetary awards in the judgment total £22,647.60.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | £17,663 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages for notice. | Upheld | — | £585 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to supply a basic statement of terms and conditions and awarded £2,136. | Upheld | — | £2,136 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £2,264 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,648
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.