The tribunal believed neither side but still had to pick a winner
He signed the payslips. He says the numbers weren’t on them yet.
That was the central puzzle facing Singapore’s Employment Claims Tribunals in a wage dispute between a foreign worker and the minimart chain that employed him, decided on October 13, 2026.
The worker, an Indian national on an Employment Pass, had been employed from January 2025 to May 2026. His agreed monthly salary was $9,000 - $8,100 in basic pay and a $900 allowance. His job title on paper was “International Marketing Director.” His actual work was cutting meat and fish, running the cash register, and stacking shelves.
That gap between title and task would become one of several uncomfortable details in the case.
According to the judgment, the worker claimed he received just $1,400 a month from January to November 2025, with even those payments arriving irregularly. From December 2025 onward, he said he received nothing at all.
He filed two claims. The first sought four months of unpaid salary from December 2025 to March 2026 - $36,000 in total, capped at $20,000 to fit within the tribunal’s jurisdictional limit. The second sought $6,562.50 for work performed in April 2026, which the employer accepted was owed but refused to pay in full.
The employer’s defence on the larger claim was straightforward: it had paid, in cash, every month. It produced four payslips bearing the worker’s signature and thumbprint.
The worker did not dispute those...
This article was also published in REDESCover, DDIA’s weekly newsletter. Click here to subscribe and get the next edition delivered straight to your inbox. With just over two weeks until the Novem...