Hanwell Restaurant Which Paid Staff with Food Has Licence Suspended

Illegal workers found at Khushi Nepalese during Home Office raid

Khushi Nepalese restaurant on Boston Parade. Picture: Google Streetview

September 4, 2025

A Hanwell restaurant has had its alcohol licence suspended after Ealing Council’s Licensing Sub-Committee heard it had been employing staff to work in the UK and paying them below the minimum wage.

At a meeting held online this Wednesday (3 September) councillors decided not to fully revoke the licence of Khushi Nepalese Restaurant on Boston Parade, but to withdraw it for three months.

A report submitted to committee by the Home Office detailed serious breaches of immigration law at the establishment. During an enforcement visit in December 2024, officers identified four individuals working illegally at the premises—three without any right to work and one in breach of visa conditions. Interviews revealed that some staff were paid below minimum wage, often in cash or with food, and that right-to-work checks were either absent or inadequately conducted. One worker stated that he was not paid in cash at all and instead received food and just £13 travel expenses. The Home Office concluded that the inspection had found ‘clear evidence of labour exploitation.’

The business was issued a civil penalty of £80,000, later reduced to £56,000 upon early settlement. The Home Office argues that the licence holder failed to uphold the licensing objective of preventing crime and disorder and requested full revocation of the premises licence. The report cites concerns over unfair competition, exploitation of workers, and repeated failures to verify immigration status.

In response, Ojas Singh the licence holder acknowledged the oversight, citing prior mismanagement and financial hardship, and outlined remedial steps including improved compliance procedures and staff training. Eight people submitted representations in support of the restaurant, praising its role in the neighbourhood and calling for its continued operation.

Mr Singh, who works full time as a Product Manager, told the meeting he had been unable to arrange legal representation and therefore was unsure about the proceedings but was told that, as he clearly had time to contact supporters to make representations, he had had ample time to arrange proper representation. A request for an adjournment of the meeting had earlier been refused.

He blamed confusion about the employment situation of staff on his having only taken over management last year and having left day to day running to a third party, however the Home Office report stated that staff told them they had been paid directly by Mr Singh. He assured the Panel that he would adhere to the rules in future. He said that he had had to take loans out from friends and family to pay the fine adding, “I've taken certain measures to make sure that this is not repeated because you know £56,000 is not a joke. It's not something that you have in your back pocket. Well, at least I don't and I have learned my lesson.”

A Home Office inspector, who attended the meeting online, argued that because of the breaches the restaurant’s licence should be revoked but councillors took into account the fact that the immigration law breach was a first offence, the role that the restaurant played in the community and Mr Singh’s reassurances about future adherence to the law. Conditions have been added to the licence to ensure full compliance including having employment records immediately available for inspection.