Is TCS Justified In Firing More Than 12,500 Employees? IT Employees Body Counters Some Arguments

Over the past few weeks, controversy has deepened around Tata Consultancy Services after reports of employees being pressured to resign began surfacing.

While some supporters have attempted to defend the company’s actions, calling it a matter of "business decisions" or claiming that "employees resigned on their own", the IT employees' body countered these justifications, saying both are "legally and morally indefensible".

In a post on X, the Nascent Information Technology Employees Senate wrote: "Over the last few weeks, many people have tried to justify TCS’s actions. These arguments may sound logical at first, but legally and morally, they collapse."

In a long post, Nites has offered counter arguments to people who "justify" TCS's actions:

Argument: TCS is a business. To stay profitable, it must cut costs.

Nites: Yes, every company needs profits. But Indian law does not allow employers to throw people out arbitrarily. The Industrial Disputes Act lays down clear procedures for retrenchment, notice, compensation, and government approval. Forcing employees to resign to escape these obligations is not business sense, it is illegal.

Argument: If there’s no project, why keep employees idle?

Nites: An employment contract is a two-way obligation. Workers give time and loyalty, employers provide continuity and wages. Business risk lies with the company, not the worker. Forcing people to resign under threat is exploitation, not workforce management.

Argument: Employees resigned themselves.

Nites: Hundreds of complaints tell a different story. Employees were threatened with termination, denial of full and final settlement, relieving letters, and even blacklisting if they refused. In law, any resignation under fear is not valid, it is an illegal termination.

Argument: Employees should be grateful, at least they had jobs for years.

Nites: Employment is not charity. Workers gave their skills and loyalty for 10–15 years. Gratitude cannot be demanded in return for coercion and humiliation.

Argument: If employees are good, they will find another job.

Nites: Reality is harsher. Many affected employees are in their 40s or 50s, with loans, dependents and specialised skills tied to certain projects. The job market is not easy, especially when thousands are forced out at once.

Argument: At the end of the day, companies must think of shareholders.

Nites: True accountability is to both shareholders and employees. A company that destroys livelihoods for short-term profit erodes trust, weakens loyalty, and harms its own long-term reputation.

Nites concluded by saying: "The truth is clear: profitability does not excuse exploitation, and forced resignations are neither lawful nor ethical. Behind every case is a family under stress, children’s futures at risk, and careers shattered overnight."