Mon Feb 02 19:28:24 UTC 2026: ### Wipro Fined for “Abusing the Process of Law” in Ex-Gratia Payment Dispute

The Story:

The High Court of Karnataka has levied a ₹50,000 fine against Wipro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., criticizing the company for “abusing the process of law” in its appeal against a lower court’s ruling. The case stemmed from a suit filed in 2019 by Ratnesh Pandey, a former regional manager, who sought the ₹6.32 lakh ex-gratia payment promised to him upon his resignation in 2017. The court upheld the civil court’s judgment, directing Wipro to pay the promised amount with 10% interest.

The court found that Wipro’s resistance to paying the ex-gratia was unjustified, especially considering Pandey had adhered to the conditions set forth in the offer letter. The legal battle centered on Wipro’s claim that Pandey’s acceptance of the ex-gratia offer was not timely and therefore voided the agreement. However, the court sided with Pandey, emphasizing that his adherence to the stipulated conditions constituted acceptance, regardless of formal written acknowledgment.

Key Points:

  • High Court Ruling: Karnataka High Court imposes ₹50,000 cost on Wipro for “abusing the process of law.”
  • Ex-Gratia Dispute: Concerns a ₹6.32 lakh ex-gratia payment promised to former employee Ratnesh Pandey.
  • Employee Tenure: Pandey worked for Wipro from 2005 to 2017.
  • Conditions for Payment: Payment was contingent on Pandey not soliciting Wipro employees, disclosing employee information, and not joining competing companies (Philips India Ltd., Bajaj Electricals Ltd.) for 18 months.
  • Wipro’s Argument: Wipro claimed the offer was revoked due to non-acceptance within a reasonable timeframe as per the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
  • Court’s Rejection: The court found that Pandey’s conduct fulfilled the acceptance criteria, regardless of formal written acknowledgment.

Key Takeaways:

  • This case highlights the importance of adhering to contractual obligations, even in the face of technical legal arguments.
  • The ruling emphasizes that conduct can constitute acceptance of an agreement, even without explicit written confirmation.
  • Corporate entities are expected to act fairly and responsibly towards their employees, and prolonged litigation over admitted liabilities is frowned upon by the courts.
  • The High Court’s decision underscores a growing trend of protecting employee rights and holding companies accountable for their promises.
  • The case reinforces that companies cannot rely on hyper-technical objections to avoid legitimate contractual claims.

    Read More

Related News: