In private employment, termination is governed by contract, barring specific performance. Defamation occurs if a termination letter contains unsubstantiated, stigmatic remarks, falling under the doctrine of compelled self-publication, as disclosure to future employers is a foreseeable consequence, warranting compensatory damages and expunction of remarks.

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff has filed the present suit, claiming damages amounting to Rs. 2,10,00,000/- for alleged defamation by his employer, asserting that the imputations made in the termination letter are contrary to the employment contract and have caused serious injury to the plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill.

The following prayers have been made by the plaintiff in the plaint: -

“A. Kindly grant a decree in favor of the Plaintiff and hold the Defendant i.e. Wipro Limited guilty of tort of defamation and injuria sine damnum.

B. Kindly direct the Defendant i.e. Wipro Limited to issue a new discharge letter expunging the negative remarks about the Plaintiff along with the sincere letter of apology for the cause of defamation and loss of reputation.

C. Kindly be pleased for the grant of Rs. 2,10,00,000 (Indian National Rupees Two Crore and Ten lacs Only) as a damage to the plaintiff caused by the tortuous conduct of the defendant and violation of Right to Dignity as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India citing the legal Doctrine of Injuria Sine Damnum.”

Factual Matrix

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant i.e., Wipro Limited, as a Principal Consultant from 14.03.2018 until 05.06.2020. His employment was governed by a contract (hereinafter referred to as the ‘employment contract’) and Clause 10 thereof expressly provided that the employment could be terminated without any reason, by either party upon serving the requisite notice period, i.e., one month during the probationary period and two months after confirmation.

On 05.06.2020, the defendant, through its authorized representative Mr. Srinath Sridharan, issued a termination/relieving letter. The letter attributes the conduct of the plaintiff as “malicious” and further claims that his actions had resulted in an irreparable breakdown in the employer-employee relationship.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid allegedly defamatory remarks contained in the termination letter, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking the issuance of a fresh termination letter expunging the observations impugning the plaintiff’s character and professional integrity.

Upon receipt of the summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement, categorically denying the averments made by the plaintiff. The defendant has sought to justify the issuance of the termination letter as being in strict conformity with the procedure stipulated under the employment contract. According to the defendant, the remarks impugned by the plaintiff are merely reflective of the plaintiff’s conduct during the tenure of his employment and were necessitated by the circumstances culminating in his termination.

Submissions

The plaintiff in person avers that the impugned termination letter is replete with defamatory and derogatory assertions that are unsubstantiated and, in effect, serve to malign his character. It is contended by him that such vague and baseless allegations flagrantly contravene Clause 10 of the employment contract between the parties.

He further contends that the allegations contained in the impugned termination letter, including the usage of words like “malicious conduct” and “complete loss of trust,” are baseless and have been made in a manner that is both defamatory and vexatious.

Moreover, it is contended by the plaintiff in person that he had duly exercised his right by making an appeal and representation against the impugned termination letter. Despite the aforesaid, according to the plaintiff, the defendant denied him an opportunity to defend himself against the spurious claims in the impugned termination letter. It is further contended that the absence of any material evidence to corroborate the alleged misconduct reinforces the position that the termination was arbitrary and capricious, amounting to an abuse of the contractual prerogative.

Moreover, it is averred by the plaintiff that the adverse remarks contained in the impugned termination letter