Mr Z Khan v AAR Bradford Ltd and others: 1601793/2020
JUDGMENT
The 3rd Respondent of AAR Properties Ltd is dismissed following a withdrawal by the claimant. _____________________________ Employment Judge S Davies _____________________________ Date – 23 November 2020 JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 17 December 2020 ........................................................................................ ........................................................................................ FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case Number: 1601793/2020 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Z Khan Respondents: 1. AAR Bradford Ltd[2]Food City Bradford Limited[3]AAR Property LimitedREASONS
[1]By a letter dated 08 February 2022, the Tribunal gave the respondents an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the responses should not be struck out because they had not complied with the Orders of the Tribunal dated 17 September 2021 and not actively pursued the response to the claims.[2]The respondent has failed to make representations in writing why this should not be done or to request a hearing. The response is therefore struck out.[3]The respondent will be entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions of the Tribunal but will only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge. Employment Judge D N Jones Date: 18 February 2022 Case No: 1601793/2020 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 March 2017 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Z Khan Respondents:(1) AAR Bradford Ltd(2) Food City Bradford Limited(3) AAR Property Limited Heard at: Leeds On: 23 February 2022 Before: Employment Judge Maidment Representation Claimant: In person Respondents: Did not attend[1]The first respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and is ordered to pay to him the net sum of £21,100.[2]The first respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the net sum of £6,960 in respect of accrued but untaken holiday entitlement as at the termination of his employment.[3]The claimant was dismissed in breach of contract and the first respondent is ordered to pay to him damages in the net sum of £4,800.[4]The claimant was unfairly dismissed. As compensation for unfair dismissal, the first respondent is ordered to pay to him the sum of £20,902 (comprised of a basic award of £1,614 and a compensatory award of £19,288).