The award includes ₹3,67,97,082 in special damages and ₹10 lakh for the mental agony, anguish and harassment suffered by Midha. The company has been directed to make the payment within 30 days of the judgment.
In a separate development, Judge Shirin Javeed Ansari directed the court registrar to file a complaint before a magistrate against two senior WTW executives, Vijaykumar Suri and Cedric Luah, over alleged false testimony during the proceedings.
Bengaluru: A Bengaluru civil court has ordered Willis Towers Watson (WTW) India Insurance Brokers, a wholly owned subsidiary and the direct Indian insurance broking arm of the global advisory, broking, and solutions company WTW (formerly Willis Towers), to pay more than ₹3.77 crore in damages to former employee Naveen Kumar Midha after ruling that his termination was wrongful and unlawful.
The court found that the company’s contractual right to dismiss an employee could not override its obligations under its whistleblower protection policy.
The award includes ₹3,67,97,082 in special damages and ₹10 lakh for the mental agony, anguish and harassment suffered by Midha. The company has been directed to make the payment within 30 days of the judgment, according to a report by LiveLaw.
The court also ordered WTW to issue Midha a fresh relieving letter without adverse remarks and remove stigmatic comments from records relating to his suspension.
Midha challenged the dismissal, arguing that the company’s whistleblower policy prohibited retaliation against employees who reported suspected wrongdoing. He maintained that he had raised his concerns with senior management but was dismissed without being adequately informed of the allegations against him or given an opportunity to respond.
In its ruling, the court rejected the argument that WTW could rely on its contractual termination clause to justify the dismissal. It held that the power to terminate employment by giving notice had to be exercised consistently with the company’s other binding contractual obligations, including its non-retaliation policy.
The court relied on admissions by WTW’s managing director that the company’s policies had been adopted by its board, that the Code of Conduct was binding and that whistleblowers were protected against retaliation.
The policy is not to be treated as a decorative or inconsequential document,” the court observed, according to LiveLaw. It added that the existence of a termination clause did not provide a complete defence where the power was allegedly exercised for a purpose prohibited by another binding term.
The special damages of ₹3.67 crore were calculated by comparing Midha’s projected earnings had he continued working at WTW with his subsequent income, including a retention bonus. The court also awarded ₹2 lakh against each defendant found liable for distinct harm to his professional life.
In a separate development, Judge Shirin Javeed Ansari directed the court registrar to file a complaint before a magistrate against two senior WTW executives, Vijaykumar Suri and Cedric Luah, over alleged false testimony during the proceedings.
The court stressed that deliberate falsehoods under oath could not be treated lightly, particularly in cases involving whistleblowers and alleged retaliation.
“If such conduct goes unremarked, witnesses in whistleblower and retaliation cases will conclude that a false denial costs nothing and that the oath is a formality,” the court observed, adding that prosecution was necessary to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings.
The ruling highlights the legal risks employers may face when their employment decisions are challenged as inconsistent with internal whistleblower safeguards. It also reinforces the principle that corporate policies adopted as binding obligations cannot simply be disregarded when an employer exercises its contractual powers.