THE former general manager of a Bradford market has won his claim for more than £13,000 of unpaid wages, notice and holiday pay at an employment tribunal.

Bradford Bazaar Limited, which denied ever employing Ubaid Mughal as general manager, has been ordered to pay him £13,800.

Mr Mughal, of Harrogate Terrace, Undercliffe, told a Leeds Employment Tribunal hearing he had accepted an offer from owner and director Jasvinder Singh to be employed as general manager of the Bazaar, earning £250 net per week, as well as becoming a stallholder at the 36 Cemetery Road site.

The pair reached a verbal agreement on this on March 13, 2012, a month before the Bradford Bazaar opened. He began working for the company on March 17, 2012.

But Mr Mughal sent Mr Singh an email on May 9, 2012 saying he had received only eight wages from when he first started working for them up to that date.

The Tribunal report said: "Shortly after the May 9, 2012 email, Mr Mughal says that Mr Singh had approached him and told him not to worry and that he would sort it out.

"The claimant said that he had demanded wage slips and that from May 9 onwards he had been paid £50 a week.

"Mr Mughal said he had no choice but to continue working for a year without proper pay because if his stall was finished he could not feed his family.

"He said that he was continually asking for wage slips and back pay. These requests were said to have been made continually up to June 2013.

"The claimant said that Mr Singh's reaction was always "we'll sort out, next week.""

Mr Mughal worked full-time at the Bradford Bazaar for at least 40 hours each week and also did freelance work as a journalist and photographer.

His role also saw him collect rent on behalf of Mr Singh from other stallholders.

Matters came to a head in June 2013 when Mr Mughal sided with other stallholders and rejected Mr Singh's proposal for a £5 per day rent increase on stalls from April 6, 2013.

He was then replaced as general manager of the Bazaar by Adrian Patrick.

The report added: "On June 22, 2013, Mr Singh took away the claimant's responsibilities as general manager.

"Mr Singh was concerned that Mr Mughal's rallying of traders against the rent increase and led to disruptive behaviour."

The two-day hearing took place at Leeds Employment Tribunal in April this year and findings were sent to the parties on October 15.

The report concluded: "The respondent was not entitled to terminate the claimant's employment summarily on June 22, 2013 and is liable to the claimant for damages for having done so in breach of contract."

Speaking after the hearing, Mr Singh denies Mr Mughal was employed as general manager.

Mr Singh said: "It was absolutely the wrong decision for the tribunal to reach.

"He was not an employee, he was just helping out as a trader. He was helping me to collect the rents.

"You can't be a trader and an employee, as there would be a conflict of interest."