Case 6003057/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Hazra and v Chrysalis Connect Limited SITTING AT: London Central Employment Tribunal — 2024
- Case reference
- 6003057/2024
- Decision date
- 23 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Smart JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Hazra and
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages under s13 Employment Rights Act 1996. The hearing took place on 21 August 2024 before Employment Judge G Smart at London Central Employment Tribunal. The Claimant attended and the Respondent did not.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was a worker within the meaning of s230 Employment Rights Act 1996, although she was not an employee of the Respondent. The Tribunal upheld her claim for unpaid wages in respect of January, February and March 2024, finding that the Respondent had unlawfully deducted wages by failing to pay her for 182.5 hours of work at a gross rate of £10.90 per hour.
The Respondent was ordered to pay £1,989.25 gross as unpaid wages. The Tribunal noted that the wages were likely chargeable to income tax and that, if tax were not deducted at source, the Claimant had agreed to account for any income tax to HMRC.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid wages under s13 Employment Rights Act 1996 for January, February and March 2024 succeeded. Tribunal found the Claimant was a worker within the meaning of s230 ERA 1996 (though not an employee) and that 182.5 hours at £10.90 per hour gross were unpaid. | Upheld | — | £1,989 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,989
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.