Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Devansh  Devansh

Datashri Consultants Ireland Limited

Representatives

Karl Gill, Solicitor

Devesh Agrawal, Proprietor, Company Secretary

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00069864-001

10/03/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00069866-001

10/03/2025

On 10 March ,2025, the Complainant, a Senior Data Analyst and Indian National introduced his claims to the WRC as a Lay Litigant. They are conjoined to the earlier Decision in ADJ  56967.

 He outlined that he was owed € 21,198 for nonpayment of wages on 31 December 2024.

The first claim was received at 10.10 am on 10 March. A second duplicate claim CA-00069866-001 was received 10 minutes later. both carried the subject heading “Third formal complaint “

The Respondent was notified of the claim.

The Respondent through Ms. Ruchi Agrawal rejected the claims made on 28 March 2025 and sought their withdrawal.

On 14 Apr2025, Ferrys Solicitors came on record as the complainant’s representative.

On 2 May 2025, both Parties were invited to hearing in Cork scheduled for 6 June 2025.

On 23 May 2025, in preparation for hearing, I wrote to each party seeking:

“I require both parties to prepare and submit chronological written submission to accompany the oral evidence at hearing.

I require copies of any contract, relevant pay slips, PRSI records, Revenue records which may assist please “

In response, I received a copy of a direct correspondence from the Respondent to the Complainant demanding an immediate withdrawal of his claims, rebuttal of employee status a written assurance that “no further claims will be pursued against the Respondent company.”

 On 26 May 2025, the Complainant sought access to a hybrid hearing to accommodate a witness living outside of Ireland.

On 27 May 2025, I wrote once more requesting that the Respondent refrain from submitting uncanvassed documents in favour of “my request for a written submission “

The Respondent agreed to my request and forwarded a written submission in defence of the claim.

On 28 May 2025, the Complainant forwarded a written submission comprising all 4 complaints.

On 29 May 2025, the hearing was redesigned as a remote hearing.

On 31 May 2025, the Respondent forwarded an additional submission.

The hearing occurred on June 6, 2025.

The Hearing was protracted and combative and caused me to have to seek follow up information.

“In follow up to both parties to seek to achieve a crystal clarity on documents outstanding to my investigation.”

Complainant: Both IG Work Permits

                          Revenue Screen Shot

                          A signed Partnership Agreement of July 2024

                         Pay Slips from Sharp Granite

I also require Mr Bansal and Mr Agrawal to explain the source and direction of the below mentioned financial transactions within 7 days please.

Source 31912-080

5 June 2024   €300

7 June 2024    €300

21 June 2024   €300

11 July 2024 MOB Ea. licence fee

23 July 2024      €300

9 August 2024 €300

13 August 2024 €500

28 August 2024 €300

25 September 2024 €300

5 November 2024      €8,100.00

2 December 2024       €8,500

14 February 2025         €7616.30

36623-088

21 February 2025         €18, 423.06   Is this money currently available to the business?

I sought this information to help me ascertain whether the inflated sum claimed at hearing by the complainant, disputed by the Respondent, which in turn differed from the amounts inserted on the complaint forms amounted to properly payable wages.

Both Parties responded as requested. The Respondent made reference to a witness who was unable to hear online. The Respondent did not introduce a witness during the hearing or on the prior notification to the WRC.

CA-00069864-001 Claim under Payment of Wages Act, 1991

 On 14 February 2025, the Complainant, an Indian National and Senior Data Analyst submitted a claim under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 that he had not received €21, 198.00 in respect of unpaid wages on 31 December 2024

“Despite multiple attempts to resolve this issue. I am still owed €21, 198…. for the period October 2024 to January 2025. I demand Adjudication.

The Complainant sought payment in full on the basis of his wages having been received from Berkley to the Respondent.

By means of written submission, the Complainant outlined that he had been employed by Datashri Consultants Ireland ltd from September 1, 2024, as a Data Engineer and Senior Data Analyst. He worked remotely. He exhibited a Work Permit.

CA-00069866 Claim under Payment of Wages Act, 1991

This is a duplicate claim.

The Complainants Solicitor outlined that the Complainant resided in Ireland on a 1G Graduate Visa / Work permit. He had been hired as a remote employee by Mr Bansal Amit (witness) and hoped to secure a Critical Skills Employment work permit in due course.

 He commenced employment on September 1, 2024. He signed a contract for service with the Respondent on 30 August 2024, this was replaced by a contract of employment signed on 1 September 2024. Salary was listed as €108,000 per year.

He outlined that the complainant had been in receipt of part payment of wages from the respondent, however, he was not aligned to the UK business of the same name as the Respondent.

Prior to his involvement with the Respondent, the Complainant held the following positions

1 Independent Contractor, Berkley Recruitment Group Limited placed for work purposes in Clearstream fund Centre SA (Clearstream) in receipt of €400.00 per day.

The Respondent entered a Voluntary Liquidation on 7 May 2025.

 Mr Eoin Massey and Mr Tom Murray of Friel Stafford Corporate Recovery were appointed as Liquidators.

2

The Complainant had left the employment on 28 February 2025, when his salary was withdrawn by the Respondent.

The Complainant sought payment of € 32,000    in unpaid wages across the four complaints in ADJ 56967 and 57503.

Evidence of the Complainant:

The Complainant completed his Graduate studies in Ireland and was in possession of a 1G Visa, with permission to work.

Prior to September 2024, he worked at Clear stream as a remote contractor, placed by Berkley Recruitment.

He met Mr Bansal Amit on Facebook in mid-September 2024 as his graduate visa was set to expire. He was offered work with the Respondent and signed a contract for over 100, 000 euros per year.

He submitted that a bonus payment referenced over 3 months had not been honoured by the Respondent.

He was aware of the internal dispute of animosity between Mr Amit Bansal and Mr Agrawal, the Proprietor.

He had endeavoured to secure the payments set out in his contract of employment but concluded that the Respondent had no intention of paying him in full.

He exhibited pay slips that were populated but never paid.

Revenue returns were not completed.

During cross examination, the complainant confirmed that Mr Amit Bansal signed the contract on behalf of the Respondent. He clarified that he had commenced work on September 1, 2024, rather that October 1, 2024, listed on the WRC complaint form dated 10 March 2025.

He confirmed that he received the contract of employment by email but could not confirm date of receipt.

Mr Agrawal questioned Mr Bansal’s authority to conclude legal relations on behalf of the respondent, to which the complainant replied that he understood Mr Bansal was delegated by the Respondent as “partners in the same company “.

The complainant in analysing the different between his interface with Berkley and the Respondent confirmed that he had filled in time sheets for Berkely but not for the Respondent.

He had obtained the Cork address for the business from the CRO. He mentioned other mail chains but did not exhibit these.

In redirect, the complainant confirmed receipt of the contract of employment in mid-September 2024.

The time sheets submitted to Berkley listed the client as Clearstream.

In response to the question as to why the pay slip at Appendix 3.1 issued? the Complainant stated that has arisen from Accountants for Good intervention and conversation between Mr Agrawal and Mr Bansal.

In clarifications, the complainants stated that he had not been a player in the interparty conflict between the Respondent, Mr Agrawal and Mr Bansal and he worked away as usual.

This was his first job in Ireland and followed completion of his master’s Programme at UCD in September 2023.

In seeking to understand all the complainants referenced to his work completed, he clarified that Sharp end Granite was an umbrella company for payment purposes.

The Respondent had changed his title on the work permit which endured to October 2025 as a bid to chase a critical skills visa down the line.

His line Manager was based at Clear Stream.

He disputed that the Respondent operated an employment agency.

In response to the contract attributed to September 1, 2024, start date, the complainant stated that he was the sole employee with the Respondent, he had not received any documents on annual leave, expenses re-imbursement or a staff handbook, which were all referenced in the contract relied on.

Evidence of Mr Amit Bansal, Chartered Accountant.

Mr Bansal introduced himself as a Qualified Chartered Accountant and Auditor. He told the hearing that he was an Accountant in good standing.

He submitted to an identifiable level of corporate discord with Mr Agrawal and referred to it as a “bitter dispute “

He outlined that the Respondent had masterminded an aspect of IT, and it was his objective to set up an IT Consultancy.

The Company in UK had 7 employees.

The Company of the same name in Ireland had 1 employee, the complainant.

Mr Bansal gave evidence that he had dinner with the Complainant in advance of the commencement of his employment where to the proposed salary of €108 ,000 per annum was muted as being in the realm of the market rate for the role and a strategic move to form “a stronger basis for critical skills “work permit.

He sent an email to the complainant dated 25 September 2024, which confirmed his employee stratus and back dated the commencement to September 1, 2024.

Mr Bansal confirmed that the pay slip exhibited at appendix 3.1 had been nulled and had not been submitted to Revenue.

Mr Bansal outlined that issues arose regarding access to a company bank account and he resigned in October 2024. He was then appointed Director of both respondent entities with 50% commitment to Ireland. The objective was to run an IT Consultancy.

 He contended that he had legitimate authority to employ the complainant. He had made a payment of €2.500 to the Respondent

During cross examination, Mr Bansal confirmed he was a Chartered Accountant and had resigned on 21 May 2025.

The Agreement that bound him to the Company through a Partnership Agreement was signed by Ms Ruchi Agrawal, the Respondents wife, not visibly present at hearing.

He disputed that Berkley paid the UK company in respect of the complainant.

Mr Bansal disputed that the complainant was in any way linked to Mr Agrawals UK entity.

Anshdev 76479

In redirect, Mr Bansal confirmed the company remained an active company on face book. He confirmed that by February 2025, Mr Agrawal had sought to withdraw company funds of €10,000 to buy a car but he had refused him.

In clarification, Mr Bansal confirmed that a Service Level Agreement was in existence with Berkley on a Monday to Friday basis.

The Contract was sourced online. There was a residual €20,000 in the Company on entering liquidation.

In testing the operation of the contract, Mr Bansal confirmed that the complainant relied on his own laptop, and he refused the offer of a company phone.

He had checked in with the complainant and he had sought a 2% pay rise in December 2024 and he responded that salary could be reviewed after 12 months.

He outlined the truncated system of payment and assured the hearing that the Adjudicator on examining exhibited accounts would see a €9,000 passage from Berkley which travelled to the Company account.

In conclusion, The Complainants Solicitor submitted that Section 2 of the contract was void and trumped by Section 8.

The Complainant was a remote worker based at Clearstream and was a legitimate employee of the Respondent with a cumulative unpaid wage of €32,000 in total over the 4 complaints before the WRC.

The Complainant submitted some helpful clarifications post hearing, which were in turn shared with the Respondent for comment.

 The Respondent has disputed the claims made and argued that the Complainant has acted in bad faith and falsified the contract exhibited. He also argued that Mr Bansal had resigned from his business and lacked legitimate authority to enter legal relations of employment with the complainant.

At first, the Respondent accepted notification of the claim by agreeing to receive correspondence. On 28 March 2025, following notification of the second claim in this decision, the Respondent disputed the claim and the employment relationship relied on to ground that claim.

On 28 March 2025, the Respondent, Ms Agrawal, not visibly present at hearing, but referred to as a Director at the business, wrote an email to both the Complainant and the WRC, disputing the claims made.

 However, she added a stipulation that the claim be withdrawn.

Should you fail to withdraw, we will vigorously defend our position and pursue full reimbursement of legal costs, including adjudication fees, solicitor fees, and associated expenses. We trust you will act prudently to resolve this matter promptly.

Mr Agrawal came to hearing on foot of a series of written submissions. He denied any employment relationship between the parties and asserted that exhibited documents were not authentic and had been falsified by the Complainant.

He also included a copy of an email shared with Mr Bansal of February 10, 2025.

Hi Amit, I see this as a breach of our contract. The payroll of Devansh was agreed to be processed by datashri. AFG has always been acting as an accounting and bookkeeping firm. Datashri has been acting as payroll processing company for devansh and other clients

He outlined that Mr Bansal Amit, Accountant, was solely linked to the UK entity of the respondent business. He lacked legal authority to conclude legal relations on behalf of the Respondent and had colluded with Complainant against his business. A criminal investigation had been initiated in September 2024. I was not provided with material evidence of this criminal investigation.

He contended that the Respondent company had never employed the complainant. He outlined that the claim made were false.

The Respondent had entered voluntary liquidation in Ireland. The UK company of the same name was struck off on 24 May 2025.

The Respondent took repeated issue with the complainant’s use of the business address and his omission to name Mr Bansal Amit on his WRC complaint forms.

CA-00069864

CA-00069866 is a duplicate claim.

Evidence of the Respondent, Mr Devesh Agrawal.

The Respondent disputed that the complainant had ever been employed. Instead, he was at all times a self-employed contractor aligned to the UK company and not linked to the Irish Company of the same name.

The Complainants interface with the UK Company was handled by Mr Bansal and the plan was to process payments as practised by an umbrella company.

He confirmed that three or four payments of €2,886.00 were made in this vein during September, October and November 2024. The medium-term objective was to ground an application for a critical skills visa for the complainant, where his role would have to be vouched for by the Company Accountant. The Company had sought legal advice.

The Complainant agreed to alignment to the UK Company on the basis that he pay €6,000 to change his work permit in Ireland. This payment was not actioned.

During cross examination, Mr Agrawal took time out to comment that he viewed “the complainant as the innocent here “

He denied that he had pursued the partnership agreement with Mr Bansal referenced in the email dated 25 September 2024.

He said “we did not pursue this “and he had not replied to this email on legal advice.

Mr Agrawal was invited to lead witnesses but did not put anyone forward. He wrote in after the hearing had concluded saying that he had another party on the screen who was not introduced to the hearing. This approach was unhelpful.

During cross examination, Mr Agrawal confirmed that he was not running a Recruitment Agency. Invoices were issued to the complainant for € 300 .00. He had not been employed by the Respondent.

He clarified that he was not aware of the contract of employment referred to in the complainant’s evidence. Fees were not deducted, and he remained a Contractor paid on a daily rate, a fixed salary.

He referred to a habitual practice in India where there may be a structured divide for 3k sales and 3 k expenses for someone who received pay slips.

Mr Agrawal managed the bank account.

He confirmed that three to four payments were made to the complainant but attributed blame to Mr Bansal for profiteering from an Irish client.

Mr Massey, Liquidator referred to payments listed in the Irish Company bank account

5 November 2024 € 8,100

2 December 2024 €8,500

€7, 616

But was unclear of their origin.

In conclusion, the Respondent sought a dismissal of the claim as the complainant could not rely on employee status. Mr Bansal had no legal authority to conclude a contract on behalf of the respondent. The contract was not shared with him and was a fabrication

He argued that the salary jumps from €4,000 to €9,000 monthly was “nonsense “and implausible for a year one Graduate in the Irish Labour market.

I have been requested to consider both complaints lodged on 10 March 2025. Both complaints have been rejected out of hand by the Respondent.

In reaching my decisions I have had regard to the oral evidence of the parties and the written submissions furnished to the WRC.

I am grateful for some further clarity submitted post hearing.

I have decided in light of my extensive investigation in this case, not to reconvene the hearing. I have made my decision based on the facts established at hearing and the written documents, relevant in the case.

The Contract of Employment:

The context and background to this case comes against a most unusual employment relationship and a less-than-optimal contract of employment signed by the complainant.

The Complainant is seeking to chase a claimed differential in what was paid by the respondent to the complainant and what ought to have been paid arising from the contract which bound the parties.

The Respondent has stridently rejected that argument .m

I have found that CA-69866-001 is a mirrored claim and I will refer to it as a duplicate. I am concerned at the complainant stated demand for Adjudication. I wondered if AI was a contributor to the complaint.

On a point of clarification, the WRC expects parties, albeit in dispute to try and resolve matters informally prior to referral to the WRC. There is no need for the complainant to demand adjudication.

However, what I found most interesting to date, is that neither party sought to rely on the terms of the contract, which the complainant primarily argued ostensibly bound the parties from 1 September 2024.

In reading the contract, I wondered if it was an aspirational document created solely to lay a foundation for an in due course application for a critical skills work permit, for the following reasons.

1 The Contract was a template downloaded from the web. No letterhead existed outside a bare reference to the parties addresses and CRO number.

2 There was no reference that employment was contingent on a valid work permit or that the work permit attributed to the complainant was of one year duration. This made a reference to a permanent appointment suspect.

3 The clause that payment was contingent on monies being received from a third party is, I accept void in a contract of service.

4 The Complainant told me that he maintained his line management supervision at Clear stream and Datashri, the Respondent had no direct supervision over him.

5 I accept the Respondent incredulity regarding the annual salary of €108,000 per annum for a Graduate and given the manner in which consideration of the contract evolved, this premis goes to the centre of the entire case.

6 Annual leave, bonus and handbook were myths without manifestation.

7 Neither Party actioned a grievance or disciplinary procedure to address the issue of nonpayment.

The threats made by the Respondent in the wake of the submission of the complaints to the WRC amounted to an unwieldy use of management authority and were ill advisable.

8 The Complainant did not exercise the clause on resignation or provide notice of his departure.

9 There was no mechanism visible to me which permitted Mr Bansal’s company to march into the assumed role of employer in February 2025.

In short, it is my opinion that the parties got lost in the commercial conflict between the Company Secretary Mr Agrawal and the Company Accountant (past or present) Mr Bansal and the complainant was not aided by not using the tools open to him in the grievance procedure.

It is not lost on me that the Complainant initially sought a modest sum in unpaid wages

€3, 245.91, cognisable period to 31 January 2025    and € 1,916.00, cognisable period to 15 February 2025 in earlier ADJ 56967.

He has returned now to secure the contract differential.

While I may have some discretion on the enumeration of the claims on a non-statutory complaint form, I am bound to follow the time limits within the cognisable period in accordance with the statutory time limits enshrined in Section 41(6) Workplace Relations Act 2015.

The Complainants Representatives requested that I disregard these earlier stated figures in favour of the mirrored claim dated 10 March 2025 submitted at 10.10 am and 10. 20 am, where both sequential, yet identical complaints cited a cognisable period up to 31 December 2024.

Was the Complainant an employee?

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 defines both employer and employee as:

"employee" means a person who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment and references, in relation to an employer, to an employee shall be construed as references to an employee employed by that employer; and for the purpose of this definition, a person holding office under, or in the service of, the State (including a member of the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces) or otherwise as a civil servant, within the meaning of the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1956, shall be deemed to be an employee employed by the State or the Government, as the case may be, and an officer or servant of a local authority for the purposes of the Local Government Act 2001 (as amended by the Local Government Reform Act 2014)], a harbour authority, a health board or[a member of staff of an education and training board] shall be deemed to be an employee employed by the authority or board, as the case may be;

"employer", in relation to an employee, means the person with whom the employee has entered into or for whom the employee works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment.

While I have found some issues of opaqueness in the exhibited contract, I must accept that the complainant and the respondent entered into a contract of employment on September 1, 2024.

I have a deep unease surrounding the parties stated aspirations surrounding this being step one in the road to securing a critical skills employment permit in time. This was formerly a green card permit, and employees must be offered a minimum salary of €30,000 from a highly skilled eligible occupation list or a minimum salary of €60,000. Neither party told me the genesis of the €108,000 per annum for a new graduate. Therefore, I share some of the Respondents reservations in that regard.

I spent some time trying to assess the operation of the contract of employment from September 1 onwards and I remain confused on just why so many entities were involved.

I find that the Complainant can be recognised as an employee for the purposes of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 from September 1, 2024.

I accept that Sharp Granite served as a pay roll processing company as Berkley did not operate pay roll. I accept that the Complainant began to plan a transition to Datashri, the Respondent from May 2024 and payments issued via a European bank based in Estonia. I accept that the parties planned an access to critical skills pathway, but no funds were exchanged.

I find that there were simply too many entities circulating this employment arena. Any new graduate would understandably be at risk of confusion.

The Respondent has completely rejected employing the complainant. Mr Bansal gave evidence the complainant was the sole employee in Ireland. He was a remote worker based at Clearstream throughout with same line manager. There was a fluidity surrounding the link with Revenue in terms of nonpayment which put Blackrock Leisure ltd and Ann Marie Nulty, DWT 1920, Labour Court into focus.

 The Labour Court assessed the facts of whether the complainant’s knowledge of non-declaration of income tax rendered her contract illegal. The Court was satisfied that the Complainant had, demonstrated credibility, under oath, had requested a contract and pay slips and   could progress her claims.

In the instant case, I am satisfied that the Complainant got lost in the bitter commercial dispute between the Respondent and Mr Bansal. He did seek a pay rise in his first trimester at the Respondent business, and he received pay slips.

The fact that the route of payment to the complainant was rocky, circuitous and lacking in transparency caused my investigation to run much longer than I would have preferred. The Bank accounts were explained as incorporating fees for an employment Agency (umbrella company) for other workers, most likely to be UK workers.

All Parties accepted that the Respondent did not operate an Employment Agency in Ireland, at least. The Respondents Mr Agrawal at first contended that he ran an Agency but eventually agreed he could not prove this at hearing.

I requested the Complainant provide proof of a live work permit in light of the change from student to worker TA Hotels limited and Preeti Khoosye RPD 1917, where the complainant was found to have no remedy under Section 2B of the Employment Permits Act, due to expiry of permit. I have reviewed the Permits exhibited which appear to allow the Complainant work

However, my sole jurisdiction in this case is whether a contravention occurred in accordance with Section 5 of the Act?

The Complainants representative relied on Dunnes Stores Cornellscourt v Lacey and O’Brien [2005] IEHC 417 at the High Court on the test for whether wages are properly payable

Sullivan v Dept of Education [1998] ELR 217

Balans v Tesco Ireland ltd [2020] IEHC and PWD 2114 (September 2021)

CA-00069297-001 notified to the Respondent on 14 February 2025

I have decided on the evidence before me that the Complainant was an employee of the Respondent during the cognisable period allowed in this complaint 11 September 2024 to 28 February 2025, when he left the employment.

I accept that the pathway of payments made are very difficult to discern due to a number of co existent pay masters and a stratification on that pay system.

However, I find that the complainant was entitled to receive the remuneration detailed in the signed contract of 1 September 2024.

However, he ought to have actioned the grievance procedure as a dispute’s resolution mechanism.

I do not accept the Respondent evidence on the lack of an employment relationship. I found his evidence vague and lacking in credibility. I was not inspired by his reports of running two identically named businesses in two separate jurisdictions in Ireland and UK.

I preferred the evidence of the complainant, who came to hearing to recover wages.

I found Mr Bansal well disposed towards recognition of the contract of September 2024. However, his evidence on the commercial dispute was distracting from this single employment matter.

I have decided to address the first tabled complaint.

  CA-00069864-001

I find that the complainant was significantly underpaid by 31 January 2025.

This amounted to a nonpayment of wages properly payable paid to him at the business at that time. I will address the differential with the stated €108.000 per annum.

Not withstanding my highlighted concerns on the operation of the contract, I find the Respondent is ostensibly bound to the quantum recorded in this contract of employment, €108,000.per annum.

I find this sum to be properly payable. Balans applied. The Complainant completed his work at Clearstream and the Respondent had given him an undertaking to pay him , having taken over the payroll function from another company .

I find that the complainant experienced an underpayment of wages as provided in Section 5(6) of the Act.

(6) Where—

(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee,

then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.

I find the complaint is well founded and the complainant is entitled to recover € 15,000 as reasonable compensation for this underpayment.

CA-00069866 -001

This is a duplicate complaint and does not stand on its own merit.

The claim is not well founded.

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

CA-00069864-001

I have found the claim well founded on the wages typically paid to the complainant at that time. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €15,000.00 as reasonable compensation.

 This sum is subject to normal statutory deductions.

CA-00069866-001

I have found the claim is not well founded as it is a duplicate complaint to CA-00069864-001

Non-Payment of Wages / Business has entered Liquidation on a voluntary basis.