After reading thoroughly the supposed case of Harry v Gannet Ltd. I found that the relative law is the Wages Act 1986. " The Act provides for a remedy inspect of unlawful deductions from wages, with special provisions for retail employment; (NM. Selwyn, Selwyn's Law of Employment, 10th Edition, pg. 512).
             Through the above we can understand that the employer has no right to deduct any amount from employees wages. In our case the Gannet Ltd. not authorized to subtract the fifty pounds per month from Harry's wage.
             According to (5.13(1)) a deduction from the company to the wage of an employee is unlawful unless it is authorized in one of these ways.
             First the deduction may be authorized by statute. Clearly there is nothing wrong with deducting PAYE contributions and the like. Secondly, it may be authorized by a term of employee's contract, provided that either the contract is in writing or the term in notified in writing to the employees before the deduction is made (s.13 (2)). Finally, it may be authorised by specific consent of the worker, signified in writing. To ensure fairness to the employee, the Act gives no effect to a "concept" or to "agreement" to a term allowing the deduction given after the events lending to it.
             By reading our case none of the three above exceptions of the wages Act can be found. That makes Gannet's Ltd. deduction of fifty pounds per month from Harry's salary unlawful.
             According to 5.2 of the Wages Act 1986 it is allowed to have a deduction in respect of stock deficiencies or cash shortages, lead to two conditions.
             q The requirements of 5.1 must be obtained; for example contractual agreement enabling the deductions to be made.
             q The demand for payment must not exceed 10% of the total wages payable on the day in question.
             The deductions, made from wages are not allowed under the wages Act 1986. The industrial tribunals can be used to solve any una...