Delhi High Court Orders Wipro To Pay ₹2 Lakh To Employee For Defamatory Remarks In Termination Letter
The Delhi High Court has expunged defamatory remarks made against the character of an employee working with Wipro Limited from his termination letter.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav also awarded Rs. 2 lakh compensatory damages in favour of the employee to redress the reputational harm, emotional hardship and loss of his professional credibility.
“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 Court said.
It added that the termination letter, replete with stigmatic language and bereft of any foundation, constituted actionable defamation.
The Court observed that the remarks, couched in the use of the term "malicious conduct", not only lacked substantiation but also had a direct and deleterious impact on the future employability and professional dignity of the employee.
The Court was dealing with a suit filed by the employee against Wipro Limited seeking to hold the company guilty of defamation and also to issue a new discharge letter to him while also expunging negative remarks. He sought Rs. 2 crore damages from Wipro Limited. The impugned termination letter included words like “malicious conduct” and “complete loss of trust.”
Decreeing the suit in favour of the employee, the Court said that the employee had successfully shown a clear mismatch between the remarks in the termination letter and the consistent positive feedback reflected in various official documents.
It said that the statements in question were demonstrably false and defamatory in nature and that no valid defence was established by Wipro Limited.
Referring to American jurisprudence, the Court relied upon the doctrine of compelled self-publication which holds that any originator whose conduct predictably forces another to disclose defamatory matter must answer for its spread.
On this, the Court said that an employer who, by internal mandate or statutory compulsion, obliges a former employee to reveal the reason for termination cannot exonerate itself from liability for every foreseeable instance of that compelled disclosure and the reputational injury it occasions.
“In conclusion, the doctrine of compelled self-publication, though an exception to traditional principles, represents a reasoned and equitable development in defamation law. 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,” the Court said.
It added that the requirement of publication in defamation encompasses not only direct dissemination to third parties but also indirect transmission arising from foreseeable consequences.
“The law eschews a narrow, formalistic view of communication in favour of a pragmatic and substance-oriented approach. The inquiry is not centered on the subjective intent of the defendant but on whether, in the circumstances, a reasonable person in the defendant‟s position would have foreseen the likelihood of third- party access,” the Court said.
“As noted above, in such determination of the element of forseeability, various factors are to be kept in consideration which include, but are not limited to, the mode of communication, choice of medium of dissemination, inevitability of third party access –owing to the choice of medium or nature of content, element of self-compelled disclosure, etc,” it added.
Justice Kaurav concluded that law cannot allow reputational harm, born of unsupported accusations, to continue unabated where such harm significantly impacts an individual's career and prospects.
The Court said that the relief must be tailored to redress the wrongful infliction of reputational injury and to vindicate the employee's right to dignity in the sphere of employment.
“In view of the foregoing findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned termination letter, replete with stigmatic language and bereft of any foundation, constitutes actionable defamation. 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 Court said.
Title: ABHIJIT MISHRA v. WIPRO LIMITED