Delhi HC pulls up Wipro: What a company can't say in employee's dismissal letter

First Post

17-07-2025

The Delhi High Court has rapped Wipro for remarks against the professional character of an employee in his termination letter. Abhijit Mishra, who had worked as a principal consultant at the company, filed a defamation suit and sought over Rs 2.10 crore in compensatory damages. But what did the IT major say in the pink slip? read more
Wipro has been asked to pay compensatory damages to its former employee. Representational Image/Reuters
Can employers use harsh language against an employee in a termination letter? The Delhi High Court has come down heavily on IT major Wipro Limited for remarks against the professional character of a former employee in his dismissal letter.
The court has asked the company to pay compensation to the man and issue a fresh termination letter. The ex-employee had filed a defamation suit and sought damages of over Rs 2.10 crore.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Let's take a closer look.
What did Wipro say in the pink slip?
Abhijit Mishra worked as a principal consultant at Wipro between 2018-2020.
In his termination letter, the company used phrases like 'malicious conduct' and 'complete loss of trust.'
He then moved the Delhi High Court against Wipro and sought compensation.
Delhi High Court pulls up Wipro
The Delhi High Court has ordered Wipro to pay Rs 2 lakh in compensatory damages to Mishra over the termination letter that it said was replete with 'stigma and insinuations.'
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav asked Wipro to expunge defamatory remarks made against the professional character of its ex-employee.
'Further, a fresh termination letter shall be issued to the plaintiff devoid of any defamatory content, and consequently, the impugned termination letter shall cease to be of any effect insofar as the defamatory content is concerned,' the Delhi High Court said, as per LiveLaw.
The court found that Wipro's termination letter contained unsubstantiated negative remarks against Mishra.
'The remarks therein, couched in the use of the term 'malicious conduct', not only lack substantiation but also have a direct and deleterious impact on the future employability and professional dignity of the plaintiff,' the judge noted.
Ruling in favour of the ex-employee, the High Court said that there was a 'clear mismatch' between the comments in the dismissal letter and consistent positive feedback in several official documents.
The court observed that the remarks were 'demonstrably false and defamatory in nature' and that Wipro did not establish a valid defence.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
ALSO READ: Why Karnataka is probing mass layoffs at Infosys
It asked Wipro to pay compensation to Mishra 'to redress the reputational harm, emotional hardship, and loss of professional credibility'.
Justice Kaurav said that the tenor of the communication reflected a noticeable 'intent to carry out a form of character assassination by Wipro under the semblance of administrative formality, thereby compounding the damage to Mishra's reputation and standing,' as per an Economic Times (ET) report.
The Delhi High Court also interpreted the doctrine of 'compelled self-publication' in matters related to defamation, ruling that 'employers cannot evade liability' under defamation law by using 'confidential correspondence as a shield'.
Justice Kaurav said about the doctrine, 'It ensures that employers cannot evade liability by using confidential correspondence as a shield when, in substance, their actions set in motion the very harm the law seeks to redress.'
He concluded that the defamation law cannot allow reputational harm, arising out of unsupported claims, to continue, especially when it significantly impacts a person's career and prospects, reported LiveLaw.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
What did Wipro argue in court?
Wipro had argued before the High Court that Mishra, who worked in a senior, creative, and managerial position that required highly creative and original work, focused more on his self-styled identity as a 'crusader for social change,' rather than his professional duties, as per the ET report.
The company claimed Mishra's behaviour showed his 'lack of interest' in improving his professional performance, which ultimately resulted in his termination.
With inputs from agencies