Case 6015408/2025 · Employment Tribunal

C Reid (counsel) For the v S Kondapurredy (respondent director) — 2026

Case reference: 6015408/2025
Decision date: 21 May 2026
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge W Anderson Appearances

Indexed: 15 July 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

C Reid (counsel) For the

Respondent

S Kondapurredy (respondent director)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

D J Vedprakash Jain claimed unpaid wages for July to October 2024, a separate wages underpayment of £6,874, and 18 days' holiday pay. Using 10 November 2024 as the relevant date and accounting for early conciliation from 6 February to 20 March 2025, the tribunal calculated that the claims should have been presented by 20 April 2025. They were presented on 29 April 2025.

The claimant relied on the respondent's promises of payment, his lack of legal or trade union representation, and confusion about the deadline. Applying section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal found that these matters did not establish that timely presentation had not been reasonably practicable. The unpaid-wages and holiday-pay claims were therefore dismissed as out of time. The redundancy payment claim continues and no monetary award was made in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	Dismissed because it was presented outside the applicable time limit and the tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	Dismissed because it was presented outside the applicable time limit and the tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time.	Dismissed	—	—
Redundancy	The judgment records that the redundancy payment claim continues; it was not determined at this hearing.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.