the Applicant v Namitha Nakul Pty Ltd
At a glance
- 2
- 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.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want 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.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.