Case 4110049/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Kumar v TM 1890 Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4110049/2019
- Decision date
- 21 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Kumar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 alleging unauthorised deductions from wages. The respondent did not enter a response under rule 16 and did not appear at the hearing. The claimant attended in person and explained that the figure originally sought in the claim form was £148.11, but after reviewing the hours worked he was only pursuing payment for ten hours at £8.21 per hour, giving a revised claim of £82.10.
The tribunal saw the claimant’s calculation of the hours worked and the payments received, and in the absence of any response from the respondent accepted that the claim was well founded. It therefore held that the section 23 claim succeeded and ordered the respondent to pay £82.10 as unlawful deductions from wages. No separate element of award was identified beyond that sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal treated the claim as one under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for unauthorised deductions from wages. The claimant had originally claimed £148.11 in unpaid wages but, after recalculating the hours worked, sought £82.10 for ten unpaid hours at £8.21 per hour. | Upheld | — | £82 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £82
- across all upheld claims
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.