Subscribe
A Bengaluru Civil Court declared the termination of Naveen Kumar Midha, a former employee of Willis Towers Watson India Insurance Brokers, “wrongful and unlawful” and awarded him Rs 3.67 crores in special damages under the company’s whistleblower protection policy. Another Rs 10 lakh was offered to Naveen towards mental agony, anguish and harassment. The amount is payable within 30 days of the judgment.
Naveen, a senior professional in the insurance industry’s Health and Benefits practice, had alleged that he was suspended and later dismissed after reporting suspected financial irregularities and unethical practices at Willis Towers Watson. His complaints included alleged payments to unlicensed intermediaries and phantom vendors, as well as possible manipulation of accounting records.
The court awarded Rs 3,67,97,082 based on a calculation comparing Naveen’s projected earnings at Willis Towers Watson with his subsequent income, including a retention bonus. It also awarded Rs 2 lakh against each defendant found liable for distinct harm to his professional life. The court directed the company to issue him a fresh, neutral relieving letter and expunge stigmatic comments from his suspension-related records.
Besides offering monetary damages, Judge Shirin Javeed Ansari also directed a perjury complaint against two senior executives of the company.
“…If such conduct goes unremarked, witnesses in whistleblower and retaliation cases will conclude that a false denial costs nothing and that the oath is a formality. The public interest in truthful testimony, and in protecting the Court's process from deliberate deception, therefore requires prosecution….”, the court noted in the order, according to Livelaw.
According to reports, Naveen was suspended in July 2018 over allegations concerning payments to a client through a third-party administrator. While the suspension was revoked in September after the company found no conclusive evidence against him, he was terminated the following day, with two months’ salary paid in lieu of notice.
The court ruled that WTW's contractual power to terminate on notice could not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with its own non-retaliation policy. The court relied on the Managing Director's admissions that the board had adopted WTW policies, that the Code of Conduct was binding, and that whistleblowers were protected from retaliation.
“The policy is not to be treated as a decorative or inconsequential document… The defendants cannot rely upon the existence of the termination clause as a complete answer to an allegation that the power was exercised for a purpose prohibited by another binding term… The contractual notice provision and the non-retaliation provision operate in different spheres…”, the court said.
Naveen argued that the company's whistleblower policies protected employees who reported suspected wrongdoing and prohibited retaliation against them. According to him, despite communicating his concerns to senior management, he was suspended and subsequently terminated without giving details of the allegations against him or the opportunity to respond.
Separately, the court directed its registrar to file a complaint before a magistrate over the alleged false testimony made by two senior executives of WTW, Vijaykumar Suri and Cedric Luah.
