Mr S Khan and Mr M Sulman v Fresh Food Enterprises Ltd: 2310022/2025 and Others
JUDGMENT
UNDER RULE 22 The Judgment of the Tribunal is that:[1]The claims for unfair dismissal and for redundancy payments are dismissed because neither claimant had sufficient service to bring the claims.[2]The respondent shall pay to the first claimant Mr Khan the gross sums of £1,098.98 for five weeks’ unpaid wages, commission of £540, notice pay of £219.78 and holiday pay of £571.43 making a total of £2,430.19.[3]The respondent shall pay to the second claimant Mr Sulman the gross sums of £1,098.98 for five weeks’ unpaid wages, commission of £327, notice pay of £219.78 and holiday pay of £2,017.58 making a total of £3,663.34.REASONS
[1]This decision was given orally on 22 May 2026. Both claimants requested written reasons.[2]By a claim form presented on 24 December 2025 the claimant Mr Shahkar Khan brings claims for unfair dismissal, a redundancy payment, notice pay holiday pay and unlawful deductions from wages.[3]By a claim form presented on the same date, the claimant Mr Muhammad Sulman brings the same claims.[4]These claims were consolidated by Regional Judge Khalil on 20 May 2026.[5]Both claimants worked for the respondent as food delivery drivers. Mr Khan’s period of service commenced on 9 May 2025 and Mr Sulman's period of service commenced on 4 March 2024. Both claimants’ employment ended on 24 October 2025. This remote hearing[6]The hearing was a remote public hearing, conducted using the cloud video platform (CVP) under Rule 46. The parties consented to the matter being heard by video.[7]In accordance with Rule 46, the tribunal ensured that members of the public could attended and observe the hearing. This was done via a notice published on Courtserve.net. No members of the public attended.[8]The claimants, who were the only attendees, were able to hear and see what the tribunal heard and saw. The claimants gave evidence.[9]The participants were told that was an offence for them to record the proceedings. The remedy issues[10]The issue for the tribunal was: to what amount is each claimant entitled for notice pay, unlawful deductions from their wages including commission and holiday pay on termination of employment.[11]It was also an issue for the tribunal as to whether the claimants had sufficient service to claim unfair dismissal and a redundancy payment and if not whether those claims should be dismissed. No response to the claim[12]Under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 the claimants are entitled to Judgment because no response has been received to their claims. The respondent did not attend this hearing. They had not participated in the proceedings.[13]The respondent is an active company at Companies House. It was incorporated in May 2015.[14]There has been action under section 1000 of the Companies Act 2006 which gives power to strike off a company not carrying on business or in operation. According to documents filed at Companies House, this compulsory strike off action was temporarily suspended on 4 April 2026. The respondent remains an active company.[15]The respondent is a franchise of Papa John’s Pizza. The claimants delivered the pizza orders using their own transport.[16]The company’s registered office is at Whitchurch Parade, Whitchurch Lane, Edgware, Middlesex, HA8 6LR. Mr Khan gave the respondent’s address as in Lower Addiscombe Road, Croydon. There is one Director of the company, Mr Rashid, whose address for correspondence is given at Companies House as the address in Lower Addiscombe Road. I was satisfied that Mr Khan’s claim has come to the respondent’s attention via that address being an appropriate address for the respondent.[17]Mr Sulman gave the respondent’s address as 323 Brighton Road, Croydon. This was a different branch of the respondent’s business run by the same franchisee. The claimants saw Mr Rashid every week. The business is still running. I am satisfied that Mr Sulman’s claim has come to the respondent’s attention via that address being an appropriate address for the respondent.Findings of fact
[18]Mr Khan worked for the respondent for 5.5 months. Mr Sulman worked for the respondent for 1 year 7.5 months. Neither claimant had 2 years’ service so they were not able to claim unfair dismissal or a redundancy payment. Both claimants worked as food delivery drivers.[19]Both claimants gave evidence that they were given no paid annual leave during their employment and no accrued annual leave pay on termination of employment. The claim is undefended and I find that they did not receive any holiday or holiday pay.[20]Both claimants were unpaid for three weeks of work.[21]Both claimants also said that upon joining, their first two weeks’ pay was withheld and they were told this was “standard practice” upon joining. The claimants were told that they would get this pay when they left, but they did not.[22]Both claimants went to work as normal on 24 October 2025 and were told that the business was closing due to insolvency. Mr Rashid told them that he could not employ them anymore but said they would be paid through the liquidation. Their employment was terminated with immediate effect. He subsequently said he could not “address their money”. They were not paid.[23]The “car commission” was an agreement for a payment to each claimant of £1 per pizza delivery. For Mr Sulman has unpaid commission for three weeks of £327. For Mr Khan the sum as claimed is £540.[24]Both claimants worked 18 hours per week. Their normal take home pay was £215.78 per week. They told me that according to their pay slips their gross pay £219.78.[25]For both claimants, five weeks unpaid wages is £1,098.98.[26]Both claimants are entitled to 1 week’s notice pay in the sum of £219.78.[27]For holiday pay, Mr Khan’s length of service was 9 May 2025 to 24 October 2025. In his calculation this was 6 months. It is 5.5 months. I award him 2.6 weeks holiday pay and not the 2.8 weeks claimed. The award of holiday pay for the first claimant is £571.43.[28]For holiday pay, Sulman’s length of service was 4 March 2024 to 24 October 2025 which is 1.64 years. Mr Sulman put it at 1.67 and he also amended his start date in his calculation from 4 March 2024 to 1 March 2024. This is 9.18 weeks’ pay which is £2,017.58 which is awarded to the second claimant.The relevant law
[29]Under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, an employee requires two years’ service in order to bring a claim for unfair dismissal.[30]Under section 155 ERA 1996, an employee requires two years’ service in order to claim a redundancy payment.[31]Under section 13 ERA workers have a right not to have deductions made from wages unless they are agreed in writing or they are authorised by statute or contract. Commission falls within the definition of wages, under section 27(1)(a) ERA.[32]Under Regulations 13 and 13A of the Working Time Regulations 1998, workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks annual leave per annum. Under Regulation 14 a worker is entitled on termination of employment to a payment in lieu of the proportion of leave untaken as at the termination date.Conclusions
[33]The claims for unfair dismissal and for redundancy payments are dismissed as neither claimant had two years’ service with the respondent.[34]Both claimants are entitled to 5 weeks’ pay for the claim for unlawful deductions from wages in the sum of £1,098.98 each.[35]Each claimant is entitled to 1 week’s notice pay in the sum of £219.78.[36]The first claimant is awarded car commission of £540. The second claimant is awarded car commission of £327.[37]The first claimant is entitled to holiday pay in the sum of £571.43. The second claimant is entitled to holiday pay in the sum of £2,017.58.[38]The total of the award to the first claimant is £2,430.19.[39]The total of the award to the second claimant is £3,663.34.