On March 9 last year, Rimple arrived at Dubai airport, expecting to catch a connecting flight to New Zealand and return to her kitchen-hand job at a kebab restaurant in Rotorua the following day.

She never made it.

An immigration officer told her that her New Zealand work visa had been cancelled. Her employer had informed Immigration New Zealand (INZ) she no longer worked for the company.

Rimple had already booked her return ticket, emailed her employer and supplied medical evidence explaining why she had been unable to return to work earlier. Instead, she had to return to India.

More than a year later, Rimple has secured another legal victory against two men connected to her former employer, which is now in liquidation.

In a judgment delivered on September 9, the Employment Court ordered restaurant manager Gursahib Singh Dhillon and Harpal Singh Bal, who had arranged her recruitment, to pay her a further $1,437.50 in legal costs after their unsuccessful attempt to challenge an earlier ruling in her favour.

The latest order adds to more than $70,000 in awards and legal costs against the company and the two men.

Two days after being turned back at Dubai airport, Rimple had written to her employer expressing her "shock and disappointment at being dismissed", questioning why the restaurant had terminated her employment without properly informing her.

It was an extraordinary turn for a woman who, less than two years earlier, had paid the equivalent of nearly NZ$34,000 to secure that very job.

What the employment tribunal heard

Rimple's journey began in India in April 2023, when Bal arranged for her to work as a kitchen hand at NZ Kebab and Pizza House, a family-run restaurant in Rotorua.

Over the next three months, Rimple and her relatives transferred the equivalent of nearly NZ$34,000 into bank accounts belonging to Bal's in-laws in India.

WhatsApp messages later presented to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) revealed how closely the payments were tied to her employment.

In one message to Rimple's sister, Monika, Bal said the restaurant manager had told him he could not give Rimple work "until I receive my payment".

Bal claimed the transfers were repayments of a family loan. The ERA rejected that explanation and found he had unlawfully sought a recruitment premium on behalf of the restaurant.

But there was a crucial obstacle to recovering the money. The payments went into the personal accounts of Bal's relatives in India. The ERA could not establish that the employer, NZ-Kebabs Limited, had actually received the $34,000.

It, therefore, did not order the company to refund the money under the Wages Protection Act. Instead, the company was ordered to pay Rimple a $16,000 penalty.

Authority member Simon Greening found the company's conduct had been deliberate. Rimple had lost the use of the money and had also repaid her sister, while the company had taken no steps to mitigate the financial consequences for her.

Rimple began working at the restaurant on July 10, 2023, earning $29.66 an hour for a normal 30-hour working week.

A wedding, an illness and a cancelled visa

In December 2024, Rimple travelled to India for her wedding. She was scheduled to return to work in February 2025, but became unwell and could not travel as planned.

On February 21, she contacted her employer. According to Rimple, she explained that she was ill and was told to return when she had recovered.

The employer offered a different account, claiming she had indicated she did not intend to return to New Zealand. On March 4, Dhillon emailed Rimple about her absence and final pay. He also informed INZ she was no longer employed.

Rimple called him back. She told the ERA Dhillon had reassured her that the email was merely related to an immigration audit.

The Authority subsequently accepted that she had been given that explanation during telephone conversations with Dhillon and Bal, and that neither had mentioned her dismissal.

Rimple supplied medical evidence and advised the restaurant that she had booked a flight to return to work on March 10. The company did not respond.

Five days later, she was stopped at Dubai airport.

The ERA found Rimple could not reasonably have understood from the March 4 email that she had been dismissed. Her subsequent actions, including booking a flight and providing medical evidence, demonstrated that she intended to return.

Her dismissal was unjustified, the Authority ruled.

At the investigation hearing, Rimple described struggling to cope with the emotional consequences of losing her job. Discovering at Dubai airport that she had also lost her visa was, the Authority recorded, "emotionally devastating".

She was awarded $14,000 in compensation for the emotional harm caused by her dismissal.

However, the Authority did not find that Dhillon had misled INZ when he reported that her employment had ended.

A legal victory, then liquidation

Unable to return to New Zealand, Rimple searched for work in India, where some jobs offered her the equivalent of about NZ$200 a month, she told the ERA. She eventually moved to Australia and continued looking for employment.

By the time the Authority heard her case in February 2026, she had still not secured another job. The Authority accepted she had made genuine attempts to find work and awarded her six months of lost wages.

On March 4, almost exactly a year after the email that preceded her ordeal at Dubai airport, the ERA ruled in her favour.

It ordered NZ-Kebabs Limited to pay $22,620 in lost wages, $14,000 in compensation for emotional harm, a $16,000 penalty for the unlawful recruitment premium and more than $4,500 in unpaid employment entitlements.

The total came to $57,197.12, excluding interest and legal costs. It did not include a refund of the original $34,000.

Then, on May 21, the company entered liquidation.

The following month, the ERA awarded Rimple another $12,500 in legal costs. Of that amount, $6,500 was payable by the company, $3,500 by Bal and $2,500 by Dhillon. The company was also ordered to reimburse $291.32 in expenses.

The litigation did not end there.

Dhillon and Bal sought additional time to challenge the original ERA determination, but the Employment Court dismissed their application on June 28.

The subsequent September costs judgment brought the combined awards and costs against the company and the two men to $71,425.94, excluding interest.