Case 6002583/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Shashwat Sharma v Vedanta Resources Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002583/2025
- Decision date
- 5 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Duff REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Shashwat Sharma
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Director of Corporate Finance employed by Vedanta Resources Ltd from 03/04/2023 to 15/02/2025, brought a claim for unauthorised deduction from wages (with breach of contract pleaded in the alternative) concerning a performance bonus for the 2023-2024 financial year. Claims for holiday pay, notice pay, wrongful dismissal and consequential financial loss were withdrawn at the outset of the hearing or during submissions. The respondent's two witnesses did not attend the hearing, and the tribunal noted the limited weight that could be placed on their evidence.
The tribunal found that the offer letter formed part of the claimant's contract of employment and that it provided for a 'Total Target Remuneration' of £315,000, comprising a £165,000 base salary and an annual performance bonus of up to £150,000 payable on achievement of agreed deliverables/KPIs. The tribunal held that the bonus was a contractual entitlement, with the respondent's discretion limited to circumstances where the claimant failed to meet his targets. On the evidence, including confirmation from the claimant's line manager that targets were met and an A grade rating, the respondent had not justified paying only £60,000 (40% of the target bonus).
The reduction of £90,000 was therefore an unlawful deduction from wages under s13 ERA 1996, and the respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £90,000. The tribunal added that, had the deductions claim failed, the breach of contract claim would have succeeded on the same facts (with remuneration capped at £25,000).
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the respondent made an unauthorised deduction of £90,000 from the performance bonus the claimant was legally entitled to at the end of the 2023-2024 financial year. | Upheld | — | £90,000 |
| Breach of contract | Pleaded in the alternative on the same facts. Tribunal stated that had the unauthorised deductions claim failed, the breach of contract claim would have succeeded (capped at £25k). No separate award made. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for financial loss (increased mortgage payments) attributable to the unauthorised deduction was dismissed as withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay dismissed as withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for holiday pay dismissed as withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim for wrongful dismissal dismissed as withdrawn. | Withdrawn |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £90,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.27(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- New Century Cleaning Co Ltd v Church [2000] IRLR 27
- Kent Management Services Ltd v Butterfield [1992] IRLR 394 EAT
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.