Case 2204173/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Nandigam v Phasor Solutions Ltd (in administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204173/2020
- Decision date
- 21 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote CVP hearing on 21 October 2021 before Employment Judge Davidson, the tribunal issued a corrected judgment in favour of Mr V Nandigam against Phasor Solutions Limited (in administration). The respondent did not attend. The judgment records awards for arrears of pay, arrears of pension, notice pay, holiday pay, and a protective award.
After deducting sums already received from SRP, the tribunal awarded £7,989.41 for arrears of pay, £180.39 for arrears of pension, £6,545.33 for notice pay, £3,187.52 for holiday pay, and £20,958.90 for a protective award of 90 days' pay from 20 April 2020. The total recorded award was £38,861.55. The extracted record does not set out reasons beyond the award headings.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as arrears of pay after deduction of £3,016.92 already received from SRP. | Upheld | — | £7,989 |
| Other | Awarded as arrears of pension; no separate statutory label is given in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | £180 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as notice pay after deduction of £538 already received from SRP. | Upheld | — | £6,545 |
| Working time regulations | Awarded as holiday pay after deduction of £408.63 already received from SRP. | Upheld | — | £3,188 |
| Trade union | Awarded as a protective award of 90 days' pay from 20 April 2020. | Upheld | — | £20,959 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £38,862
- 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.