the Applicant v Namitha Nakul Pty Ltd
Citation: [2022] FCA 712
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 2
- Awards cited
- MA000003
What happened
the Applicant and Syed Haider were employed as cooks at two Indian restaurants (Wollongong and Nowra) operated by Namitha Nakul Pty Ltd and managed by director Vaisakh Mohanan Usha. the Applicants worked long hours without formal breaks and were underpaid. They were required to repay portions of their wages as 'cashback payments' allegedly for loans, visa sponsorship, and tax obligations. Poor employment records made factual findings difficult. The court relied on objective facts including payslips, evidence of duties, and working patterns.
What was decided
The court found serious contraventions of the Restaurant Industry Award 2010 relating to hours of work, break entitlements, and proper classification. The 'cashback payments' were characterised not as loan repayments but as unlawful contraventions of Fair Work Act sections 323 and 325. the Second Respondent was found to have knowingly engaged in these contraventions through coercion and misrepresentations regarding loan arrangements, visa costs, and tax obligations. Penalty proceedings were reserved for later determination.
What it means for employers
Employers cannot require employees to return wages through informal cashback arrangements, regardless of the stated purpose (loans, tax, visa costs). Accurate employment records are essential and their absence weighs against the employer. Modern award requirements on breaks and hours are not negotiable, and attempted work-arounds through casual engagement or voluntary arrangements do not excuse non-compliance. Visa sponsorship or employee debt cannot justify underpayment.
What it means for employees
Employees in receipt-based work (hospitality, retail) should verify their actual hours and check payslips for errors. Award classifications determine minimum pay rates and break entitlements. Any requirement to repay wages or contribute to tax and visa costs is a red flag. Award entitlements cannot be waived by agreement or circumstance.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2022/2022fca0712Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →