A former manager at a Papa John’s franchise was terminated from his position after he insisted on receiving his wages through official channels, including proper tax and National Insurance deductions, rather than accepting cash-in-hand payments. An employment tribunal has ruled in favor of the employee, Ashwani Kumar, finding his dismissal to be automatically unfair. The tribunal also upheld claims for unlawful wage deduction and failure to pay holiday pay.
Background of the Dispute
Ashwani Kumar began his employment as a manager at a Papa John’s branch in Harlow, Essex, in February 2023. From the outset, he was reportedly asked to work on a cash-in-hand basis. However, Mr. Kumar refused this arrangement, stating his desire to ensure that the correct amount of tax and National Insurance contributions were paid to the relevant authorities. While payment in cash is not illegal in the UK, it becomes unlawful tax evasion if the income is not declared to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).
During his employment, Mr. Kumar was provided with payslips. Upon closer inspection and after contacting HMRC, he discovered that these payslips were not genuine records of tax payments, and no deductions were actually being made or remitted. This revelation led to his insistence on receiving itemized payslips that accurately reflected tax and National Insurance contributions.
Dismissal and Subsequent Events
The situation escalated in January 2025, shortly after Mr. Kumar returned from a holiday. He was informed by his employer that his current store no longer required his services. He was allegedly offered a position at a different Papa John’s location, but only if he agreed to be paid cash-in-hand. Mr. Kumar refused this condition, leading to his dismissal.
Following his termination, Mr. Kumar refused to leave the premises of the Harlow branch. Police were subsequently called to the scene to escort him out. The tribunal heard that throughout his tenure, Mr. Kumar was unable to take paid holidays and did not receive any accrued holiday pay. Furthermore, he claimed that his wages for December 2024 were not paid.
Tribunal Findings
Employment Judge Julia Jones presided over the hearing. The judge ruled that Mr. Kumar’s dismissal was a direct consequence of his persistent requests. Specifically, the judge stated that the dismissal was due to ‘his insistence on being given itemised payslips, having his tax and National Insurance deducted and shown on his payslip and being paid for holidays and having the right to take holidays’.
The respondents in the case, identified as EEM London and EEM Holdings, along with franchise owner Abdul Sattar Askar, did not attend the tribunal hearing and offered no defense. As a result, the tribunal found in favor of Mr. Kumar on the grounds of automatic unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages, and failure to pay holiday pay.
Legal Implications and Next Steps
The ruling highlights the legal protections afforded to employees who assert their rights regarding fair wages and proper tax compliance. While cash payments are permissible, employers are legally obligated to declare all income to HMRC and make appropriate deductions for tax and National Insurance where applicable. Failure to do so can constitute tax evasion.
The tribunal has scheduled a future hearing to determine the compensation and remedies to which Mr. Kumar is entitled. Papa John’s corporate entity has been contacted for comment regarding the incident and its policies on employment practices within its franchise network.
Employee Rights and Tax Compliance
This case underscores the importance for both employers and employees to understand their rights and responsibilities concerning employment law and tax obligations in the UK. Employees have the right to receive clear, accurate payslips detailing their earnings, deductions, and net pay. They are also entitled to statutory holiday pay and protection against unfair dismissal.
For employers, adhering to these regulations is crucial to avoid legal repercussions. This includes ensuring all workers are paid correctly, whether through bank transfer or declared cash payments, and that all statutory deductions are made and remitted. The case serves as a reminder that insisting on lawful employment practices, even when faced with employer resistance, is a protected right.
Conclusion
The employment tribunal’s decision in favor of Ashwani Kumar sends a clear message regarding the consequences of circumventing tax laws and unfairly dismissing employees who advocate for their legal rights. The case emphasizes the importance of transparency in payroll practices and the legal framework designed to protect workers from exploitation and ensure compliance with tax regulations.
