TRENDING ON ONEINDIA
- UK Court Orders Vijay Mallya's Extradition; CBI Welcomes Decision
- Hockey World Cup 2018 — Catch The Latest Updates
- PUBG Mobile — Watch The New Live-Action Trailer
- Tata Nexon Crash Test Global NCAP — Five Stars And Officially Becomes The Safest Car In India!
- SBI, HDFC Bank Loans To Get Costlier As Lenders Increase MCLR
- Sara Ali Khan Has Inspired Us To Keep It Casual-glam For The Next Party
- To Gorkhey — A Homestay Trek In The Himalayas
- These Unseen Pics From 'NickYanka's Weddings Scream Love!
She planned to take them before a tribunal this week to claim damages for allegedly breaking a string of employment laws, reports the Mirror. D'Souza was prepared to face her former bosses with accusations including unfair dismissal, breach of contract, race discrimination, failing to give her a proper contract of employment and withholding wages.
However, she withdrew the case, after being paid a five-figure settlement by the millionaire couple. Despite having millions in their bank accounts Hurley and Nayar allegedly paid Violet just 8,000 rupees a week, worth about 100 pounds, which works out at between 1.40 pounds and 1.60 pounds an hour. D'Souza lived and worked for the couple at their posh London home for four years before being suddenly fired.
She went to seek help from local Citizens Advice Bureau lawyers following the sacking, and soon filed for an employment tribunal claim. She also filed for minimum wage and earnings owed under U.K. law, where employees over the age of 22 must be paid at least 5.52 pounds an hour.
D'Souza claims to have worked between 60 and 70 hours a week at one point, and was occasionally required to be on hand from 7.30am until 3am the following day. The case was scheduled to go before the capital's Kingsway Employment Tribunal on Feb 21 for a pre-hearing review, but Hurley and Nayar settled the dispute by offering D'Souza a five-figure sum at the last minute.
A spokesman for Kingsway Employment Tribunal says, "We can confirm this claim has been withdrawn and the pre-hearing review has been cancelled, but cannot discuss the reasons."