Facts in Brief
- The Plaintiff (Abhijeet Mishra) was employed by Wipro Limited (the Defendant) as a Principal Consultant.
- His employment contract permitted either party to terminate the arrangement without assigning reasons, subject to a notice period under Clause 10.
- When Wipro terminated his services, the termination letter went beyond the contractual requirement—it stated that his conduct was “malicious” and that there was a “complete loss of trust” leading to an irreparable breakdown of employer-employee relationship.
- The petitioner challenged these remarks, claiming they were defamatory and unsubstantiated, and sought deletion of the remarks along with damages exceeding ₹2 crores.
Court’s Findings
1. Validity of Termination
- Clause 10 of the employment contract was held to be determinable in nature under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
- The Court held that the termination itself was valid, and the plaintiff was not entitled to reinstatement or damages for wrongful termination.
2. Defamation in the Termination Letter
The Court emphasized that reputation is part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. Defamation in tort law requires:
- (i) a false and defamatory statement,
- (ii) publication to a third party,
- (iii) identification of the plaintiff, and
- (iv) absence of lawful justification.
Here, Wipro’s allegations of “Malicious Conduct” were found to be unsubstantiated. The plaintiff’s performance reviews showed consistently positive feedback, and the employer produced no disciplinary record to justify its statements.
On the defendant’s argument that there was no publication, the Court applied the Doctrine of Compelled Self-Publication (borrowed from American jurisprudence). Since employees are often required to disclose termination letters to prospective employers, defamatory content in such letters foreseeably reaches third parties.
Relief Granted
The Court awarded ₹2,00,000 as compensatory damages to the plaintiff for reputational harm, emotional distress, and professional loss.
Defamation in Tort Law: Essentials
Defamation, as a tort, protects an individual’s reputation against unjust injury. Its essentials are:
- Defamatory Statement – lowers the reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.
- Falsity – truth is an absolute defence.
- Publication – communication to at least one person other than the plaintiff.
- Identification – the statement must refer to the plaintiff.
- Absence of Defence – e.g., justification, fair comment, or privilege.
In employment matters, defamation frequently arises through:
- Termination letters,
- Performance appraisals, or
- Show-cause/disciplinary notices that contain stigmatic remarks.
Why This Case Matters
The decision of this case is significant because it:
- Highlights that employers may terminate employment in accordance with the contract, but they cannot tarnish an employee’s character without substantiation.
- Brings into Indian jurisprudence the Doctrine of Compelled Self-Publication, thereby recognising the foreseeable impact of defamatory letters in employment contexts.
- Strengthens the principle that reputation is constitutionally protected under Article 21.
For employees, this ruling affirms that their dignity and reputation are not left unprotected even when their employment is contractually terminable at will. For employers, it is a cautionary reminder to maintain restraint and professionalism in drafting termination or disciplinary communications.
📩 If you found this analysis useful and would like to read more insights on law, contracts, and recent judgments, do subscribe to my newsletter: Divesh Labh’s Newsletter.
){kind=link}