Rs 3.67 crore in special damages and a perjury complaint against two senior executives: a Bengaluru civil court has held the 2018 termination of a former Head of Health and Benefits at Willis Towers Watson India Insurance Brokers wrongful and retaliatory.
Bengaluru: Holding that the employer’s own whistleblower policy limited its power to dismiss on notice, a Bengaluru civil court has declared the September 2018 termination of an employee, who had allegedly raised concerns about financial irregularities, wrongful and unlawful. It awarded him Rs 3,67,97,082 in special damages and Rs 10 lakh for mental agony and harassment, and directed its Registrar to file a complaint for perjury against two senior officials of the company [Midha v. Willis Towers Watson India Insurance Brokers and Others].
Judge Shirin Javeed Ansari delivered the judgment. Advocates Arjuna Rao and Madhav Misra appeared for the plaintiff, and Advocates Syed Shujath Mehdi and Perikal K. Arjun for Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
A policy that binds the employer
Statutory whistleblower protection in India, under the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014, concerns disclosures about public servants. The ruling therefore does not rest on that statute. It rests on the company’s own whistleblower and non-retaliation policy and Code of Conduct, which the Court treated as binding, relying on admissions by the Managing Director that the board had adopted the WTW policies, that the Code of Conduct was binding, and that whistleblowers were protected from retaliation.
The Court held that the company’s contractual power to terminate on notice could not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with its own non-retaliation policy:
The policy is not to be treated as a decorative or inconsequential document.
From suspension to termination in a day
The plaintiff, identified in the judgment as Mr Midha, headed Health and Benefits at Willis Towers Watson India Insurance Brokers, formerly Almondz. In July 2018 he was suspended over allegations of facilitating payments to a client through a third-party administrator. He contended that during his employment he had raised concerns about alleged phantom vendor payments, manipulation of accounting records, payments to unlicensed intermediaries and other financial irregularities, and that company policies protected employees who reported suspected wrongdoing and barred retaliation. These are the plaintiff’s allegations of irregularity; the case before the Court was about the termination and the company’s conduct towards him.
The company revoked the suspension on September 27, 2018, having found no conclusive evidence against him, and terminated him the next day with two months’ salary in lieu of notice. He said he was given neither the particulars of the allegations nor an effective chance to respond. His suit was filed on January 18, 2021.
Retaliation, not restructuring
The Court found that the termination was retaliatory, pointing to the close proximity between the revocation of suspension on September 27, 2018 and the termination on September 28, 2018, together with the plaintiff’s reporting of the alleged irregularities, including facilitation fees to unlicensed sub-brokers. It cautioned that chronology by itself is not conclusive proof and that the absence of a formally titled whistleblowing complaint does not by itself mean no protected disclosure was made. It also noted emails from an alleged unlicensed facilitator copied to senior company officials before the suspension, and that the company had not disclosed a pending dispute with that facilitator in its August 2018 IRDAI licence renewal application.
Managing Director Vijay Kumar Suri, the company’s witness, had described the termination as part of restructuring. The Court held that he produced no evidence for it:
A termination reason that appears for the first time in the witness box, is absent from the pleadings, and is supported by no document is not testimony. It is invention.
The complaint for perjury
Under Section 340(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Registrar is to file a complaint against Vijay Kumar Suri and Cedric Luah, another senior company official, for offences under Sections 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 191 and 192. Against Suri, the Court found that he relied on an email of July 16, 2018 without disclosing that its sender had withdrawn it within about three hours, calling this a half-truth, and that he said there was no concept of whistleblowing in the company before admitting that whistleblowers were protected.
Against Luah, it found his absolute denial of any disclosure by the plaintiff false in light of a legal notice and a November 2017 WhatsApp message addressed to him. These are findings of the trial court in this suit; they are not findings in any criminal proceeding, which will follow separately and in which the individuals concerned are presumed innocent.
Damages and other directions
Willis Towers Watson India Insurance Brokers, Willis Europe B.V., Willis Towers Watson PLC and WTW India Pvt Ltd were held jointly and severally liable, the Court finding them bound by the WTW policies and noting that senior personnel including Vivek Nath and Scott Burnett had received the whistleblowing communications. The Court accepted the plaintiff’s loss of income chart, which compares projected WTW earnings with his actual earnings at UIB Insurance Brokers, including a Rs 1 crore retention bonus, and shows a cumulative net loss of Rs 3,67,97,082. It also awarded Rs 10 lakh for mental agony and harassment and Rs 2 lakh against each liable defendant for injury to professional life.
The defendants must issue a fresh, professionally worded separation letter free of stigma, and withdraw and expunge the suspension and revocation-of-suspension letters to the extent they contain stigmatic observations about his conduct, professionalism and integrity. His separate claim of Rs 1 crore for defamation was rejected as barred by limitation under Articles 75 and 76 of the Limitation Act, 1963, since the alleged statements were made between July and October 2018 and the suit was filed on January 18, 2021.
What the judgment signals
An employer’s internal whistleblower policy, the decision indicates, is an enforceable term that limits a right to terminate on notice. A notice-pay clause is not a complete answer, the Court held, when the power is said to be used for a purpose another binding term forbids.
This is a trial court’s judgment. The report available at the time of writing does not state whether an appeal has been filed, and the defendants’ position on the findings was not available beyond what is recorded in the judgment.
Case Title: Midha v. Willis Towers Watson India Insurance Brokers and Others
Bench: Judge Shirin Javeed Ansari, Civil Court, Bengaluru
Date of Judgment: reported October 22, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Arjuna Rao and Madhav Misra for the plaintiff; Advocates Syed Shujath Mehdi and Perikal K. Arjun for Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4