ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00064174
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Anrita Anu Yadav | Mahamaya Ltd |
Representatives | Self -Represented | Self - Represented |
Complaint(s):
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-00077866-001 | 22/11/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/05/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Valerie Murtagh
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. Parties were sworn in at the commencement of the hearing.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 30 September 2025 as a waitress. The Complainant worked 15 hours per week. Her employment with the Respondent ended on 9 November 2025. The Complainant has taken a case under the Payment of Wages Act claiming that she did not receive wages owing to her in the amount of €2176 and that the Respondent is in breach of the Payment of Wages legislation. The Complainant claims that two payslips issued in respect of the same period and there was a change to her employment date without informing her of same. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent states that there was no underpayment of wages. It states that the Complainant worked for six weeks and was paid for every hour she worked. The Respondent states that the reason for the amendment to the Complainant’s payslip was on the basis for a technical workaround. It states that the payroll system generated an anomalous tax refund of €2,176, an amount inconsistent with a six week employment history. The Respondent states that the payroll software would not allow the finalisation of the company’s entire payroll without either processing this refund or adjusting the entry. The Respondent states that to ensure other staff were paid on time, its accountant used a technical workaround. This involved temporarily adjusting the start date and applying Emergency Tax status. The Respondent’s position is that any tax refund is a matter between the employee and Revenue. The Respondent notes that at the hearing, the Complainant confirmed that she has received her tax refund. In those circumstances, it requests that the claim be dismissed. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have examined the within claim under the Payment of Wages Act. Section 5. (1) of the Act states that “An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless – (a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute, In the circumstances of the within claim, I find that there was no underpayment of wages by the Respondent. It is evident from the submissions provided that an issue arose with regard to a refund of emergency tax. I note that the Complainant on commencement of her new employment received said tax refund. On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the Complainant has not demonstrated a breach of the Payment of Wages Act by the Respondent. I find that the complaint is not well-founded. |
Decision:
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.
I find that the within complaint is not well- founded. |
Dated: 27/05/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Valerie Murtagh
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act |