Case 6002971/2024 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance For the v Mr Seikh — 2024
- Case reference
- 6002971/2024
- Decision date
- 4 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tueje Between
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South by CVP on 2 December 2024 before Employment Judge Tueje. The Claimant, Mr Mohammed Miah, did not join the hearing at 2.00pm and there was no attendance on his behalf. The Respondent, Ruhul Alom Seikh, attended in person.
The tribunal records that the clerk tried telephoning the Claimant twice, but each time the call rang off. The clerk also emailed the Claimant asking him to join the hearing, and the tribunal delayed the start of the hearing to give him an opportunity to attend.
In the absence of any explanation for the Claimant's continued non-attendance, the tribunal considered it just and appropriate to dismiss the claim under rule 47. The judgment does not set out findings on the underlying merits of the substantive claim(s), and it does not record any remedy or monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written judgment does not identify the substantive cause(s) of action; it states only that 'the claim is dismissed'. The gov.uk listing for this case identifies unlawful deduction from wages and working time issues, but those heads are not set out in the judgment text itself. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.