ERA dismisses pizza workers’ claims

ERA dismisses pizza workers’ claims

Claims of unpaid wages, unlawful premiums and unjustified dismissal brought by four migrant workers against a Wellington-based pizza  business and its owners have been dismissed by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA).

The ERA found their allegations were not supported by the evidence. Some of the migrants had worked at the business’s Pizza Land store in Ōtaki.

The case involved Dharma Services Ltd, which operates fast-food restaurants in the Wellington region, and its director and owner-operator, Anil Kumar Lakra, along with his wife, Deepika Lakra. The applicants – Anand Singh, Parveen Kumar, Deepak, and Jatin Saroha – all worked for the company during 2023 and alleged they were underpaid, forced to work excessive hours, and required to pay large sums of money to secure their jobs in New Zealand.

In a detailed determination released on January 27, 2026, ERA member Claire English rejected all major claims.

Mr Kumar told Ōtaki Today that despite the legal outcome, the case had taken its toll.

“Financially, I lost everything I had saved over 18 years of clean work history,” he said. “I was forced to sell my Porirua store at a fraction of its value just to fund my legal defence. I am still in debt.

“My Ōtaki store’s revenue dropped by nearly 70 percent due to community boycott and reputational damage. Twice, potential buyers pulled out of purchasing the business because of the allegations.”

He also said he had been verbally abused and physically threatened in Ōtaki by a local resident who called him a “leech” and told him to deport himself.

“I chose not to run away. I stayed. I fought through every legal channel to prove my innocence. In doing so, I lost my savings, my peace of mind, and years of stability, but I now have the truth on record.”

The applicants in the ERA case argued they routinely worked between 60 and 70 hours a week but were paid for only 30, relying heavily on Google location data from their mobile phones to show they were present at the restaurant for extended periods. They also alleged they were required to return to the workplace late at night to refrigerate pizza dough and that some were charged unlawful “premiums” of up to $40,000 for their jobs.

However, the authority found the location data unreliable as proof of work. While it showed phones were near the restaurant, it did not establish that the workers were actually working, or even carrying their phones at the time.

“The data cannot show what the person was doing,” English said, noting evidence that the applicants often visited the restaurant socially, to eat, rest, or accompany colleagues on deliveries. In some cases, location data also showed the workers at beaches and scenic lookouts during claimed work hours.

The ERA found the rosters and payslips produced by the employer – which showed 30-hour work weeks – were more credible than the applicants’ reconstructions based on phone data. As a result, all claims for unpaid wages were dismissed.

Claims that workers were required to return to the restaurant in the middle of the night were also rejected. English accepted evidence from Mr Lakra that dough was meant to be refrigerated at closing time and that any late-night visits were voluntary, brief, and not directed by management.

The applicants also sought compensation for unjustified dismissal, arguing they were effectively forced to resign. However, the ERA found no personal grievance claims for unjustified dismissal had ever been properly raised.

While the applicants’ “statements of problem” listed numerous alleged statutory breaches, none referred to dismissal or termination. English declined to “read in” such claims, particularly given the detailed legal drafting used elsewhere in the documents.

Serious allegations of unlawful premium payments – sums allegedly paid in India to secure jobs – were also rejected. While some payments were proven, the authority found they were consistent with legitimate costs such as airfares, visa fees, and immigration advice. Larger alleged cash payments were unsupported by independent evidence and relied largely on handwritten notes and recollections.

“I am not prepared to make such an order under these circumstances,” English said, noting the lack of corroboration and the fact that some payments occurred outside New Zealand’s jurisdiction.

The ERA also took note of evidence that the applicants had been encouraged by a former flatmate – who had previously acted as Mr Lakra’s lawyer – to lodge claims and apply for migrant exploitation visas. All four applicants ultimately left their jobs within a short period after securing alternative employment elsewhere.

With all substantive claims dismissed, no compensation, wage arrears, or penalties were awarded against Dharma Services or the Lakras.