Case 6016103/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Bassi v East London Community College — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016103/2024
- Decision date
- 5 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Park Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Bassi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Park heard the case by video at East London Hearing Centre on 4 and 5 March 2025, with the claimant in person and Mr M Chowdhury (solicitor) for the respondent. The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant, and the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim for a redundancy payment, which was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the claimant's claims for unlawful deduction of wages, holiday pay and notice pay. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,310.01 (gross) for unlawful deduction of wages, £201.54 (gross) for two days' untaken accrued annual leave, and £1,007.70 (gross) for notice pay.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the standard 14-day window. The judgment does not set out further factual findings or legal analysis beyond the orders made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear the redundancy payment claim; claim dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Respondent ordered to pay £1,310.01 (gross). | Upheld | — | £1,310 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent ordered to pay £201.54 (gross) in respect of 2 days' untaken accrued annual leave. | Upheld | — | £202 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim succeeded; respondent ordered to pay £1,007.70 (gross). | Upheld | — | £1,008 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,519
- 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.