Search
Advertisement
Kerala man wins ₹38 lakh compensation in UK Job dispute after employer failed to provide work

Kerala man wins ₹38 lakh compensation in UK Job dispute after employer failed to provide work

During the hearing earlier this year, Shaji described the hardships he faced after being left without a job.

Business Today Desk
Business Today Desk
  • Updated Jun 3, 2026 7:00 AM IST
Kerala man wins ₹38 lakh compensation in UK Job dispute after employer failed to provide workShaji had decided to move to the UK after hearing about what he believed was a major shortage of healthcare workers.

A Kerala man who moved to the United Kingdom chasing a better future has been awarded nearly £30,000 (around ₹38 lakh) after an employment tribunal found that his employer failed to provide the work it had promised, according to a report by The Guardian. 

Shabin Shaji had travelled to the UK under the country's post-Brexit care worker visa scheme, which requires sponsoring employers to offer genuine employment. However, despite securing a visa and relocating to Stafford, England, Shaji was allegedly left without work or income after arriving in the country.

Advertisement

Related Articles

The employment tribunal ruled that his employer, Swan Care Solutions Ltd, breached its contractual obligations and ordered the company to pay him back wages for the period he was "ready, able, and willing to do" the work.

During the hearing earlier this year, Shaji described the hardships he faced after being left without a job.

Don't Miss: Exam in 2005, letter in 2026: Kerala man receives PSC appointment after two decades

"I drank tap water and bought bread close to its expiration date to survive," he said. "I looked around local shops in Stafford for free bananas and bread meant for those who were struggling. I attended church on Sundays, and the kind congregation shared snacks and tea with me, for which I am very grateful."

Advertisement

He said the experience had a lasting impact on his finances and family.

"I thought it would be a great opportunity, but when I came to the UK, I found immigrants and British people struggling. I was in a terrible situation, feeling like no one in authority cared if I lived or died."

Shaji had decided to move to the UK after hearing about what he believed was a major shortage of healthcare workers. He consulted a YouTube influencer, who connected him with an immigration agent.

According to the tribunal, Shaji paid the agent £17,000 (more than ₹21.5 lakh) before undergoing a telephone interview with Swan Care Solutions. He was later issued a Certificate of Sponsorship, which enabled him to obtain a UK work visa.

Advertisement

However, after reaching the UK, he was not given any work. His sponsored visa also restricted him from working for another employer for more than 20 hours a week, leaving him with limited options to earn.

Shaji eventually secured sponsorship from a different employer in April 2024. But by then, his health had deteriorated and he later returned to India.

Seeking justice, he approached the Work Rights Centre, an employment rights charity that supported his case.

Commenting on the issue, the charity's Chief Executive, Dr Dora-Olivia Vicol, said: "We've seen case after case of migrant care workers sold a dream in Britain, leaving their careers and families behind, only to find destitution and abandonment by their employer and the state."

She also called for reforms to the UK's Skilled Worker visa system to make it easier for migrant workers to change employers when their rights are violated.

Employment Judge Kate Edmonds, in her ruling, noted that Shaji had fulfilled all requirements to begin work.

"The claimant had done what needed to be done to start work...He was now in the country, with the right permissions, and living in the right location. However, the respondent did not provide him with work, nor did they pay him."

Advertisement

The judge further observed, "What, in effect, the respondent was doing was treating the claimant as a zero-hours worker...The problem, of course, was that the claimant was not a zero-hours worker. The respondent withheld work from him... There was therefore an unauthorised deduction from his wages."

 

Published on: Jun 3, 2026 7:00 AM IST
    Post a comment0