Cases2402262/2023

Claimant v Tech Mahindra

6 March 2025Before Employment Judge JohnsonLiverpoolremote video

Outcome

Partly successful£101

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagessucceeded

The tribunal found that the respondent made a series of deductions described as 'loss of pay' totalling £800 over the period July to December 2022. The respondent provided no explanation demonstrating these deductions were made lawfully under section 13 ERA 1996, which requires deductions to be authorised by statute, contract, or prior written consent.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

The claimant claimed £600 as a refused commission payment for recommending a new employee. The tribunal found insufficient evidence that this payment was a contractual entitlement rather than a discretionary practice, and therefore dismissed this part of the claim.

Facts

The claimant worked as a customer advisor for Tech Mahindra from June 2022 to April 2023. Between July and December 2022, the respondent made unexplained deductions labelled 'loss of pay' totalling £800. The respondent eventually reimbursed this amount in April 2023, but the delay caused the claimant to take out an unsecured loan at 16.9% APR in December 2022. The respondent also refused to pay a £600 commission for recommending a new employee. The respondent did not participate in the tribunal proceedings despite proper service.

Decision

The tribunal found the £800 in deductions were unlawful under section 13 ERA 1996 as the respondent provided no evidence they were authorised by statute, contract, or consent. The tribunal awarded £101.40 representing interest losses on the loan attributable to the delayed reimbursement. The £600 commission claim was dismissed as the claimant could not prove it was a contractual entitlement rather than a discretionary payment.

Practical note

Employers who make unexplained deductions from wages and then delay reimbursement can be liable not only for the deducted amount but also for consequential financial losses such as loan interest incurred as a direct result of the unlawful deduction.

Award breakdown

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.13ERA 1996 s.24(1)ERA 1996 s.24(2)

Case details

Case number
2402262/2023
Decision date
6 March 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
technology
Represented
No

Employment details

Role
customer advisor
Service
10 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No