Case 6019154/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sanjay Kumar Kaul v Hitamgroup Limited (previously listed as “Mitara, Subsidiary of Hitam Group Ltd”) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019154/2024
- Decision date
- 22 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge England Representation
- Venue
- London East
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Sanjay Kumar Kaul
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard by CVP at London East Employment Tribunal on 22 April 2025 before Employment Judge England. The claimant represented himself; the respondent did not attend. The tribunal first ordered that the respondent's name be changed from "Mitara, Subsidiary of Hitam Group Ltd" to "Hitamgroup Limited" (company number 15700845).
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the sum of £5,420. That figure comprises £4,300 in unpaid net wages, £700 net for a statutory notice period of one week, and £420 net holiday pay in respect of 3 days of accrued but untaken holiday.
Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the standard 14-day procedure. No legal tests or authorities were cited in the written record.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid net wages of £4300 ordered to be paid. | Upheld | — | £4,300 |
| Breach of contract | Net pay of £700 for statutory notice period of one week. | Upheld | — | £700 |
| Holiday pay | £420 net holiday pay for 3 days accrued but untaken holiday. | Upheld | — | £420 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,420
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.