The Karnataka High Court has penalized Wipro Enterprises Pvt Ltd with a cost of ₹50,000, denouncing the company's stance in a dispute over an ex-gratia payment to a former employee as an abuse of the legal process. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed Wipro's appeal against a Bengaluru city civil court order that directed the company to pay ₹6.32 lakh as ex-gratia, along with 10% interest, to its former regional manager, Ratnesh Pandey.

Pandey, who served Wipro for nearly 12 years, resigned in August 2017, with his resignation accepted the following month. As part of the separation arrangement, Wipro promised Pandey an ex-gratia payment of ₹6.32 lakh after 18 months, contingent upon certain non-compete conditions, including not joining competitors Philips India or Bajaj Electricals. Pandey claimed that despite adhering to these terms, the company failed to release the payment, even after repeated follow-ups. Consequently, he sought legal recourse in a Bengaluru civil court to recover the amount with interest.

The trial court ruled in Pandey's favor, directing Wipro to release the payment with interest. Wipro challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that Pandey was not entitled to the ex-gratia amount because he had not formally accepted the cessation letter. The company contended that the absence of a signed acceptance disqualified him from receiving the payment.

Justice Magadum rejected Wipro's argument, emphasizing that the company had already acted on the cessation of employment. The court clarified that returning the letter for records was not a mandatory condition and that Wipro had failed to prove any breach of contract by Pandey. The High Court stated that Wipro's resistance was an attempt to evade an admitted liability and characterized the appeal as an abuse of the legal process. The court observed that a corporate entity is expected to act fairly and responsibly, and not compel the employee to undergo prolonged litigation to secure a legitimate claim.

The High Court held that Wipro's refusal to pay was based on hyper-technical grounds and amounted to "vexatious resistance to an admitted liability". It ruled that such conduct violated provisions of the Indian Contract Act. The court dismissed Wipro's challenge and imposed ₹50,000 as costs, underscoring that such behavior should not be encouraged. The court directed Wipro to pay the ex-gratia amount with interest, along with the imposed costs, to Pandey.