For two and a half years, Vedika (name changed) waited. She was among hundreds of freshers who had secured a coveted placement at Infosys in 2022, a moment that should have marked the beginning of a promising career. Instead, she found herself caught in limbo, waiting for an onboarding date that kept getting pushed further away.
In October 2024, her patience was finally rewarded when she entered the company’s Mysuru campus, ready to begin training. Four months later, she was told to pack her bags and leave the premises within two hours.
Her alleged crime? Failing a set of internal assessments.
The fallout was brutal — professionally, and personally. Back home, her family reportedly began to doubt that she had ever truly secured a job. Her degree, her grades, and her placement were all questioned.
"I feel like they don’t trust me anymore," she said. "I waited two and a half years, and now I have nothing. I don’t know what to do next," Vedika added.
She is not alone.
The first week of February saw Infosys reportedly laying off close to 500 fresh recruits under similar circumstances. They were told they had not performed well enough in training assessments, despite many having already spent months within the company’s system. Their termination was swift, cold, and absolute.
Across India, similar stories are allegedly unfolding, raising urgent questions: What happens to freshers caught in the churn of corporate layoffs? Why do companies continue to hire in bulk when they seemingly lack long-term commitments to these recruits? And most importantly, what happens to those left behind? Both inside these firms and within the families that pinned their hopes on these jobs?
Layoffs are not new, but the way they are being conducted appears to have changed significantly in the past decade. Gone are the days of mass firings as a clear-cut response to financial distress. Today’s layoffs are increasingly framed as performance-based terminations, internal assessment failures, or even indirect "soft layoffs" where employees are nudged to resign rather than being formally fired.
Harpreet Singh Saluja, President of NITES (Nascent Information Technology Employees Senate), alleges that these assessments are often arbitrary. “We have evidence of employees who scored below such cutoffs being retained, where others who cleared the assessments were let go,” he claims. “It’s not necessarily a skills issue. It seems to be more about numbers,” Saluja contends.
According to Sumit Kumar, Chief Strategy Officer at TeamLease Degree Apprenticeship, there is reportedly no broad hesitation in rehiring laid-off employees, provided they remain "relevant for the job role." But what does “relevance” mean in an era where layoffs seem less about genuine performance and more about hitting internal headcount targets?
NITES is a labour rights organisation advocating for IT and ITES employees in India, focusing on workplace fairness, policy reforms, and legal support for affected workers. TeamLease is a workforce solutions company specialising in staffing, skilling, and apprenticeships, working with employers to build scalable and compliant talent pipelines across industries.
India’s labour laws are often seen as offering limited protection for employees facing sudden terminations, especially in the IT sector. Saluja highlights that, unlike many industries, IT firms in Karnataka benefit from certain state-level exemptions that allow them to bypass key provisions of the Model Standing Order Act.
The Model Standing Order Act sets standardised employment terms for industrial establishments, outlining guidelines on hiring, working conditions, disciplinary actions, and termination procedures in India. In theory, this act mandates that companies seek prior government approval before laying off large numbers of employees.
The problem is jurisdictional as well. Infosys, for example, recruits employees from across India, but its training centres are located in Karnataka. If an employee hired in Pune is terminated in Mysuru, where does their legal recourse lie?
Companies reportedly take advantage of these ambiguities, leaving employees with little clear path to challenge their dismissals. Saluja argues that this regulatory loophole enables companies to sidestep accountability and transfer the cost of termination onto employees.
The contrast becomes even clearer when looking at Singapore, a country with a similarly dynamic IT sector but a far more structured approach to labour protections. Unlike India’s fragmented and exemption-laden framework, Singapore has been actively strengthening its employment laws to close loopholes and provide clearer safeguards for workers.
A case study by legal researcher Meera Rajah, published in the Labour Law Journal in 2019, examines how recent amendments to the country’s Employment Act are expanding protections to all workers, including professionals, managers, executives, and technicians (PMETs), who are expected to make up 65% of Singapore’s workforce by 2030. The reforms strengthen wrongful dismissal protections and expand Employment Claims Tribunals, ensuring clearer contractual obligations.
Losing a job is sometimes more than just a financial blow; it can be an identity crisis, a social rupture, and, in certain cases, a psychological collapse.
A 2019 study by French researchers Christine Le Clainche and Pascale Lengagne, published by the Institute for Research and Information in Health Economics (IRDES), reportedly found that mass layoffs led to a 41% increase in psychotropic drug prescriptions among remaining employees.
Using administrative health insurance records and survey data, the study linked large-scale job cuts to heightened stress and job insecurity, particularly among lower-income workers. The findings suggest that layoffs create a ripple effect even among those who remain, significantly affecting their mental well-being.
In the context of India’s IT sector, where freshers often face prolonged uncertainty before termination, the psychological toll could be even more severe.
Vedika’s experience — where her family allegedly began to doubt her integrity — highlights a key yet rarely discussed consequence of layoffs: the erosion of trust within families.
Many laid-off employees come from working-class backgrounds, where a corporate job is seen as a lifeline out of financial precarity. What does one do when that becomes a source of humiliation and isolation?
A Deloitte International Dismissal Survey from 2018 offers a striking comparison of how dismissal policies vary across nations.
In Sweden, companies such as Ericsson Telecom reportedly have provided up to 12 months of transitional support compared to the legally mandated six-month notice period.
In the Netherlands, employers supposedly must obtain upfront court approval before dismissing workers, which helps prevent arbitrary layoffs.
In Ireland, severance costs can sometimes reach up to ten times those for justified terminations.
Corporate India has long justified harsh layoffs under the guise of "market efficiency." Yet evidence suggests that treating employees with dignity during downsizing can yield long-term benefits, not just for corporate reputation but also for future hiring prospects.
A 2022 study in The International Journal of Human Resource Management presents a framework for responsible downsizing that includes:
Regulatory safeguards to ensure compliance with labour laws,
Procedural fairness with adequate notice and opportunity to appeal,
Effective communication to provide clear reasons for terminations,
Employment support in the form of career assistance and severance packages.
Few Indian firms have reportedly adopted these principles, leaving many employees in a state of vulnerability and distress.
Layoffs are an inevitable aspect of the corporate landscape, yet the manner in which they are executed shapes long-term reputations. In India, companies like Infosys, Wipro, and HCL seem to paint a picture where freshers are treated as disposable assets; hiring in bulk, keeping them on extended waiting lists, and discarding them when headcounts need to be trimmed.
The human cost of such strategies is immense, and, as Saluja contends, “it calls into question whether these practices can ever be truly ethical.”
At the same time, Kumar offers a more optimistic view: he maintains that while layoffs may be painful, they are sometimes a necessary recalibration to ensure that organisations retain employees who continually invest in their skills.
“Not all layoffs are a sign of unethical practice,” Kumar argues. “When high performers are retained, it suggests that companies are making targeted decisions to maintain productivity.”
The rapid pace of technological evolution is forcing both employees and companies to adapt. As noted in research on global trends, technological disruptions — much like those witnessed over the past decade — are part of an evolutionary process that, albeit painful, can lead to greater economic and societal benefits in the long run.
As Kumar suggests, “The evolution of job roles is inevitable; it’s a survival of the fittest scenario, where continuous upskilling becomes essential.”
The layoffs of early 2025 seem to be the latest chapter in an ongoing story of corporate restructuring and workforce evolution. For many, like Vedika, the experience is one of heartbreak and uncertainty, compounded by family mistrust and a profound sense of betrayal. For others, as Kumar argues, these events may serve as a wake-up call to invest in personal development and resilience.
Saluja has alleged that the current regulatory framework allows companies to bypass accountability, leaving the most vulnerable employees exposed. Meanwhile, research from Singapore and international studies offers a glimpse of what a more balanced, humane approach to layoffs could look like.
Will India’s corporate sector learn to balance market efficiency with ethical responsibility, or will the cycle of hope and despair continue? As policymakers, companies, and employees alike navigate this challenging landscape, the call for a dignified and transparent approach to downsizing grows louder. A call that, if heeded, might not only reshape careers but also restore trust in the very fabric of the employment relationship.
