Worker claims underpayment of $31k, made to create his own payslips

An accounting firm and its founder have been found to have underpaid their former employee’s wages, superannuation, and annual leave, after not providing him with a single payslip during his employment.

Editor’s note: This story first appeared on HR Leader’s sister brand, Accountants Daily.

Accounting firm Jazaa Accountants (Jazaa) has been found to have breached the Fair Work Act 2009 and is liable to back pay its employee after the Industrial Court of NSW determined that he was underpaid wages, annual leave entitlements, and superannuation, and found that he never received payslips and was requested to create his own.

Nafees Ahmed claims that Jazaa and its director, Jawwad Khan, are liable for underpayments totalling $31,732.75 plus interest in entitlements and sought civil penalties against the two respondents for breaches of the Fair Work Act.

The court found that Khan failed to provide Ahmed with payslips during the entirety of his employment, commencing 8 February 2023 until his resignation on 8 July 2024 due to “the impact of the unsafe work environment on [his] health”.

In her 13 July 2026 decision, Justice Jane Paingakulam found that Ahmed was not provided with payslips during his employment with Jazza and did not receive any payslips until more than one year after his resignation.

Ahmed gave evidence that “Mr Khan asked him if he would generate his own payslips if he were given access to Jazaa’s Xero account”.

“His account is that he said that he would prefer Jazaa to do it and that he did not receive any pay slips thereafter during the period of his employment,” said Justice Paingakulam.

This led the employee to generate an Excel spreadsheet setting out the hours that he worked during his employment, she added. The court found that, according to his calculations, Ahmed worked a total of 3,081.5 hours for the firm.

Ahmed joined the firm as an accountant shortly after it was established in early 2023. Khan told Ahmed that he was looking for a full-time accountant to work for him on a long-term basis; however, warned that he could not afford to pay him until around tax time in June 2023.

“Mr Ahmed accepted that it was made clear to him from the outset that he would be working on an unpaid basis until June 2023,” Justice Paingakulam said.

“Mr Ahmed stated that he needed full-time paid work in order to be eligible for a skills assessment that would lead to him getting a visa to stay in Australia.”

The accountant told the court that during the four months of unpaid work, he worked on income and financial statements and prepared income and GST tax documents for the firm’s clients.

Ahmed was remunerated from 1 June 2023, during which he did similar work, while additionally contacting the Australian Taxation Office on behalf of clients.

“Mr Ahmed stated that the workload was particularly high in the months of June and July, coinciding with the end of the financial year, and during that period, he worked until anywhere from 11pm to 1am,” Justice Paingakulam said.

Ahmed gave evidence that he worked extra hours “out of a concern that he would lose his job if he refused to do so, and that there was an implied expectation that he would work the additional hours as necessary to meet the workload allocated to him”.

Justice Paingakulam accepted Ahmed’s evidence that he was “not provided with payslips, or his annual leave and superannuation termination pay entitlements”.

“Mr Khan was the arms and legs of Jazaa. It was his responsibility to keep employee records and make them available on request. He was the person who paid Mr Ahmed’s wages and was responsible for providing Mr Ahmed with payslips which accurately recorded those payments,” she said.

Upon consideration of all evidence, Justice Paingakulam was satisfied that Jazaa and Khan had breached the Fair Work Act, and that Khan was “knowingly concerned in or party to the contraventions of the FW Act and the FW Regulations found to have been perpetrated by Jazaa”.

Hence, the judge ruled that the firm and Khan were jointly liable to pay compensation in relation to the underpayment of wages, annual leave, and superannuation to Ahmed.

“As I intend to hear the parties further about the quantum of compensation (if the parties cannot arrive at a consent position in light of my findings) and penalties, an order at this stage for interest up to judgment, pursuant to s 100 of the CPA and s 547 of the FW Act would be premature,” Justice Paingakulam said.

Justice Paingakulam will carry out a further hearing to determine pecuniary penalties against Khan and the firm.

The case citation: Ahmed v Jazaa Accountants Pty Ltd [2026] NSWIC 37 (13 July 2026)

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.

Carlos Tse

Carlos Tse is a graduate journalist writing for Accountants Daily, HR Leader, Lawyers Weekly.