Nirali Bhatt v Prishal Limited, Utkarsh Deota and Vishal Patel [2026] NZERA 492
Nirali Bhatt moved from India to New Zealand with her two school-aged children after Prishal Limited offered her employment. She was entitled to be paid $29.66 an hour, but Prishal failed to pay her in full even after she raised the problem. The Employment Relations Authority found that this caused unjustified disadvantage and ordered $10,000 compensation, substantial wage and holiday arrears, interest, a penalty and reimbursement of the filing fee. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.
At a glance
- Citation: [2026] NZERA 492
- Authority member: Eleanor Robinson
- Determination date: 22 July 2026
- Applicant: Nirali Bhatt
- Respondents: Prishal Limited, Utkarsh Deota and Vishal Patel
- Employment: supervisor at Juice Heist
- Contractual rate: $29.66 gross per hour
- Outcome: unjustified disadvantage established
- Compensation: $10,000
- Contribution: no reduction
- Costs: reserved
The move to New Zealand
Ms Bhatt was living in India and wanted a new start. Her half-sister lived in New Zealand with Mr Deota, a director and shareholder of Prishal. Prishal offered Ms Bhatt work and sent her an employment agreement while she was still in India. The agreement provided for at least 30 hours a week, up to 45 hours, at $29.66 gross an hour. Her work visa restricted her to working for Prishal Limited.
Ms Bhatt arrived with her two children at the end of December 2023. She expected to work at Pam's Corner Dairy, but was placed at a new juice and ice-cream business called Juice Heist. She undertook training and began regular work in January 2024. Hours were arranged by WhatsApp messages and telephone calls rather than by a reliable roster.
Hours worked and inadequate records
Ms Bhatt began sending Mr Deota weekly records because she was concerned that she was not being paid for all her hours. Her hours varied as Juice Heist's trade declined, but some weeks were long: one schedule showed 55 hours, while a later week showed 32 hours. Prishal claimed that part of her wages had been paid in cash at her request, but produced no evidence showing that any cash payments formed part of her remuneration.
Prishal did not produce wage and time records. The Authority did not accept every approximate hour in Ms Bhatt's reconstructed timesheets, but assessed a reasonable average of 45 hours a week over the employment. That produced total gross wages of $34,702.20, less wages already paid.
Redundancy was not the successful grievance
Juice Heist was financially unsuccessful and Prishal proposed to close it in June 2024. Ms Bhatt was particularly vulnerable because her visa tied her to Prishal. She was informed of the proposed restructure on 12 June, attended a meeting the following day, and was told on 15 June that she would be made redundant. She received four weeks' pay in lieu of notice and returned to India with her children in July.
The determination did not find an unjustified dismissal. The successful personal grievance arose from Prishal's failure during the employment to pay Ms Bhatt in full despite her repeated concerns. The article is therefore categorised as unjustified disadvantage rather than dismissal.
Unjustified disadvantage
The Authority accepted that the pay problems caused Ms Bhatt distress and stress. She had relocated two children to New Zealand and was entitled to expect that the written terms of employment would be honoured. The fact that the employment arose through family connections did not justify withholding pay or failing to resolve her concerns.
Prishal's failure to pay the agreed wages affected Ms Bhatt's employment to her disadvantage and was unjustifiable. Compensation was fixed at $10,000. No reduction was made for contribution because Ms Bhatt had done nothing blameworthy that caused the grievance. Lost wages after the employment were declined because there was no evidence that she actively sought work that would allow her to remain in New Zealand after the closure was confirmed.
Holiday and public-holiday arrears
The Authority awarded holiday pay of $2,776.18 gross, calculated at eight percent of the assessed gross wages. Ms Bhatt had also worked three public holidays without receiving the full statutory entitlement. She was awarded $667.35 gross for the additional half-day payments and alternative holidays. Interest was ordered on the outstanding amounts from the date of determination until payment.
Penalty for withholding records
Prishal breached s 130 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 by failing to provide wage and time records when requested. The absence of records made it harder to determine Ms Bhatt's exact hours and pay. A $1,000 penalty was imposed and directed to the Crown.
Orders made
- Wages: $34,702.20 gross, less wages already paid during employment.
- Holiday pay: $2,776.18 gross.
- Public holidays: $667.35 gross.
- Compensation: $10,000 without contribution reduction.
- Interest: payable on the arrears from the determination date until payment.
- Penalty: $1,000 payable through the Authority to the Crown.
- Filing fee: $71.56.
- Payment timeframe: 28 days.
- Costs: reserved.
Why this case matters
Unpaid wages are not only an arrears issue. Where an employer continues to underpay an employee after concerns are raised, the same conduct may also support an unjustified disadvantage grievance and compensation for resulting distress. Poor records do not protect an employer: the Authority can assess hours from the available evidence and impose a separate penalty for the records breach.
Read the full ERA determination (embedded)
If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.
Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the Open button above.
Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.
