A Bengaluru court has awarded nearly ₹3.78 crore to a former Willis Towers Watson executive after finding that the company wrongfully terminated him after he raised concerns about suspected financial irregularities.
Naveen Kumar Midha, who headed the company’s Health and Benefits business, had alleged that he was removed in retaliation for reporting concerns including fictitious transactions, questionable vendor payments and possible regulatory violations.
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Shirin Javeed Ansari held that the termination was wrongful and unlawful.
The court said an employer cannot rely only on a contractual right to terminate an employee when the same company has adopted a binding policy protecting whistleblowers from retaliation.
FCRF’s Chief AI Officer Certification Returns on November 14 to Prepare Future AI Leaders
Whistleblower Had Flagged Suspected Financial Irregularities
Midha said he raised concerns with senior company officials between July 2017 and July 2018.
His allegations included suspected payments involving unlicensed intermediaries, phantom vendors and other transactions he believed required investigation.
The court did not rule that every allegation raised by Midha had been conclusively proved.
Instead, it focused on whether his disclosures were protected under Willis Towers Watson’s whistleblower and non-retaliation policies and whether his subsequent termination was connected to them.
That distinction became central to the judgment.
A whistleblower does not necessarily have to prove the underlying misconduct before receiving protection.
The employee must instead show that the disclosure falls within the applicable policy and that adverse action may have followed because of it.
Suspension Revoked, Termination Came Next Day
Midha was suspended on July 17, 2018.
The suspension was revoked on September 27 after the company did not reach a conclusive finding of misconduct against him.
His employment was terminated the following day.
Willis Towers Watson argued that Midha’s employment contract allowed termination through notice or salary in lieu of notice.
The court rejected the argument that this contractual power automatically defeated his whistleblower claim.
It said the termination clause and the non-retaliation policy served different purposes.
One dealt with how employment could ordinarily be ended.
The other prevented the company from using its employment powers to punish an employee for making a protected disclosure.
The judge held that both provisions had to operate together.
Court Says Whistleblower Policy Was Not Merely Decorative
The judgment places unusual emphasis on the legal importance of internal corporate policies.
A defence witness acknowledged that Willis Towers Watson had adopted the relevant policies and that its code of conduct protected whistleblowers from retaliation.
The court therefore treated those policies as binding obligations rather than general statements of corporate values.
It said companies cannot present whistleblower protections as meaningful internal safeguards and then ignore them when employment decisions are made.
The ruling could have significance beyond this one dispute.
Many companies maintain internal ethics, whistleblower and anti-retaliation frameworks.
The Bengaluru judgment suggests that, where such policies are clearly adopted and proven to apply, they may become relevant when courts examine whether an employee was unlawfully punished.
₹3.67 Crore Awarded for Financial Loss
The largest part of Midha’s compensation was calculated from his alleged financial loss after termination.
The court awarded ₹3,67,97,082 in special damages.
Midha had presented a loss-of-income model comparing the earnings he expected to receive at Willis Towers Watson with income and benefits from his subsequent employment.
The court accepted that calculation after examining whether the losses could reasonably be linked to the termination.
An additional ₹10 lakh was awarded for mental agony, anguish and harassment.
The court also awarded ₹2 lakh against each defendant found liable for separate injury to Midha’s professional life.
The defendants held liable included Willis Towers Watson India Insurance Brokers and related WTW entities.
Company Ordered to Remove Stigma From Employment Record
The ruling was not limited to monetary compensation.
The court directed the defendants to provide Midha with a new separation or relieving letter written in neutral and professional terms.
It also ordered stigmatic observations in his suspension and suspension-revocation records to be withdrawn or removed.
The court said professional injury cannot be measured only through salary loss.
A damaging employment record can affect reputation, career prospects and future opportunities long after the employee leaves the organisation.
That reasoning formed part of the additional relief granted to Midha.
Court Orders Perjury Complaints Against Two Executives
The judgment also took the unusual step of directing court officials to initiate complaints relating to alleged false testimony by two senior Willis Towers Watson executives.
The executives were Vijay Kumar Suri, Managing Director and Principal Officer of Willis Towers Watson India Insurance Brokers, and Cedric Luah, who headed the company’s Health and Benefits practice in Asia and Australasia.
The court found prima facie inconsistencies between parts of their sworn evidence and documentary records.
It stressed, however, that these findings do not establish guilt.
A magistrate will independently examine whether any offence involving false evidence was committed.
The court separately rejected Midha’s claims for ₹1 crore in defamation damages because those claims had been filed beyond the applicable limitation period.
That rejection did not affect the separate finding that his termination was wrongful.
What this means for you:
Corporate whistleblower policies can carry real legal consequences when companies adopt them as binding rules. Employers may not be able to rely on ordinary termination clauses if evidence shows an employee was removed for making a protected disclosure.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
