One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.
Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.
Priya Verma was a trainee at a small chartered accountancy firm in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. She'd joined in early March 2025 and was barely three months in when a senior employee, Rakesh Sinha, was let go after a bitter row over unpaid arrears and workload. The two weren't close. But Rakesh had Priya's number from a shared office group, and that was enough.
One evening in mid-April 2025, he called her personal number. The conversation seemed casual — office timings, how work was distributed, whether others were also stressed. Priya answered honestly. She thought nothing of it. Days later, Rakesh mentioned to a mutual contact that he'd recorded the call and planned to use it in a labour dispute against the firm. He even implied that if Priya said anything different before any authority, the recording would contradict her.
She was shaken. Not because she'd lied, but because she suddenly found herself entangled in proceedings she knew nothing about. She first spoke to a general practitioner in her neighbourhood, who gave her vague reassurances without actually examining the evidentiary or procedural angles. Then she approached Advocate Sudhir Rao. After a careful review of the facts, the matter was handled with a focused strategy — addressing her exposure as a potential witness, the admissibility of the recording, and the steps needed to protect her from being pulled in beyond her actual role. The situation resolved without Priya facing any adverse consequence.
Advice in Such Cases
Consult with Lawyer: The very basic and important step to start is talk to Lawyer / advocate. You should not hesitate in paying his consultation fee i.e. might be in range of Rs. 10,000 to 50,000 depends case to case. He is helping you in this situation to come out. He is expert in the domain and can help you explain the procedure which you might have never explored. A good lawyer can get the issues resolved much faster than you think.
Do not engage further with the former employee: Stop all informal communication with the person who recorded your call. Don't respond to messages, don't clarify anything informally, and don't make fresh statements that can later be used out of context. Every additional conversation creates new exposure.
Write down what you remember: Prepare a private, dated note of what was said during the recorded call, as best as you can recall. Don't share it with anyone except your lawyer. This becomes your baseline if you're ever questioned formally.
Understand your role clearly: As a trainee with limited authority and access, you're unlikely to be a primary party in a labour dispute between your employer and a former employee. But that distinction needs to be clearly articulated before any forum. And here's the thing — a general practitioner won't always know how. An advocate who regularly handles employment and evidence law disputes will know precisely how to establish the limits of your involvement and challenge the admissibility of an informally obtained recording.
Applicable Sections of Law
This matter is civil in nature, touching employment law, evidence law, and the law of witness compulsion. The following provisions are directly relevant:
- Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Governs admissibility of electronic records including recorded phone calls. A recording must be certified and meet specific conditions to be admissible as primary evidence. The Supreme Court clarified this standard in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, 2020.
- Section 122, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Deals with communications made in the course of employment relationships and privilege attaching to certain exchanges.
- Section 132, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: A witness cannot be excused from answering questions on the ground that the answer may incriminate them, but no answer so given can be used against them in any civil or criminal proceeding except a prosecution for giving false evidence.
- Order XVI, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Governs the summoning of witnesses in civil proceedings. A person can be summoned to give evidence, but the scope of their testimony can be challenged through objections before the court.
Jurisdiction — Where to File the Case
Since this concerns an employment dispute, the appropriate forum depends on the nature of relief sought. If the former employee is pursuing unpaid wages or service-related claims, the matter may be heard before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the territorial jurisdiction where the office is located. For evidentiary challenges, including objections to the admissibility of a recorded call, those would be raised before whichever court or tribunal is hearing the primary dispute. Frankly, jurisdiction matters more than people realise — procedural rules and evidentiary standards vary between forums, and a wrong forum can mean delays or rejection of your objections at the threshold stage itself.
Limitation Period
Don't wait. That's the short version.
If the trainee needs to independently seek any declaratory relief or challenge any adverse finding, limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply. For most civil suits, the limitation period is three years from the date the cause of action arises (Article 113, Limitation Act, 1963). For labour-related claims, the limitation varies by forum and type of claim. Missing limitation is fatal to a case and courts are strict, though condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may apply in limited circumstances if sufficient cause is shown.
Interim Reliefs Available
Where a recording is being used to coerce or intimidate, there are civil remedies available. A suit for injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can restrain the other party from using the recording in an unauthorised or coercive manner pending trial. Now, before you act, know this — where there's evidence of harassment or misuse of personal data, a status quo order can be sought as well. The Specific Relief Act, 1963, under Section 38, also allows courts to grant perpetual injunctions to prevent a breach of an obligation. Interim reliefs are especially useful early in proceedings, before the other side has entrenched their position.
If You Are the Victim
- Stop all informal contact with the person who recorded your call. Communicate only through your lawyer if necessary.
- Preserve any messages, emails, or evidence that show the recording was obtained without your knowledge or consent.
- Inform your current employer about what happened — in writing, briefly — so you are not seen as a party who concealed material facts from them.
- If you receive any formal notice or summons, do not ignore it. Respond through counsel within the prescribed time.
- If the recording is being used to threaten or coerce you into making specific statements, that conduct itself may amount to criminal intimidation under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and should be documented carefully.
Documents You Must Keep Ready
- Aadhaar card and PAN card (identity proof)
- Your appointment or training letter from the firm
- Any written or WhatsApp communication with the former employee, including the message where he disclosed the recording
- Call logs from your phone showing the date and duration of the recorded call
- Your own written account of what was discussed during the call (prepared privately)
- Any office circulars, policies, or communications relevant to the dispute between the employer and former employee
- Previous correspondence, if any, where the former employee made demands or threats
- Your offer letter or internship agreement showing the scope and limits of your role as a trainee
What Evidence Is Required?
- The recorded call itself: The other party will likely produce this as electronic evidence. Its admissibility must be challenged under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if proper certification is absent — as held in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, 2020.
- Call logs and metadata: Secondary evidence showing when the call occurred and its duration.
- Your training letter or appointment document: To establish that you are a trainee with limited authority, not a decision-maker in employment matters.
- Written communications: Messages showing the former employee disclosed the recording after the fact and implied using it as leverage.
- Witness statements: Statements from other colleagues who can confirm the informal nature of your role.
- Employer's records: Attendance, payroll, or internal notes that confirm your limited involvement in management decisions.
How Courts Typically Approach Such Cases
Courts in India treat electronically recorded conversations as electronic records under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, subjecting them to strict admissibility requirements under Section 65B. An informally obtained phone recording, without certification and proper chain of custody, will face significant admissibility hurdles. Make no mistake, that's your first line of defence. Courts also tend to assess the context in which a statement was made — a casual conversation by a trainee who had no authority to speak on behalf of the employer carries limited evidentiary weight, and Labour Tribunals are generally alert to attempts to use peripheral witnesses to build collateral pressure. A well-argued objection at the right stage can limit your exposure substantially.
Timeline of Legal Process
- Stage 1 — Demand notice or pre-litigation communication: 2 to 4 weeks
- Stage 2 — Filing of claim before Labour Court or Civil Court: 1 to 3 months from notice
- Stage 3 — Service of summons on parties and witnesses: 1 to 3 months
- Stage 4 — Written statement / response by opposite party: 30 to 90 days after summons
- Stage 5 — Framing of issues by the court: 2 to 4 months
- Stage 6 — Evidence stage (affidavits, documents, cross-examination): 6 months to 1.5 years
- Stage 7 — Final arguments: 2 to 4 months
- Stage 8 — Judgment: 1 to 3 months after arguments
- Stage 9 — Appeal, if any: Additional 1 to 3 years depending on forum
Understanding the Costs
The total cost of a matter like this varies significantly from one case to the next — it depends on the complexity of the dispute, the forum involved, the number of hearings, and the specific facts of your situation. There is no single fixed figure that applies to everyone.
A professional advocate can give you an accurate estimate only after reviewing all your facts and documents in a consultation.
Can the Matter Be Settled Out of Court?
Yes. And in many situations it's the most practical path. If the dispute is primarily between the former employee and the employer, a settlement between those two parties can effectively neutralise any need for the trainee's involvement as a witness at all. Mediation under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is available in civil proceedings and courts actively encourage it at early stages. Lok Adalat proceedings under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 are also available for pre-litigation settlement if both sides agree. A settlement that includes a clause releasing all third parties, including the trainee, from further involvement can fully resolve the situation. This approach is often faster, cheaper, and far less draining than contested litigation.
Common Mistakes People Make
- Continuing to talk informally with the person who recorded them: Every new conversation creates fresh evidence. Stop all contact immediately once you know a recording exists.
- Assuming the recording is automatically valid evidence: Many people panic unnecessarily. A recording obtained covertly without consent faces real admissibility challenges under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- Not informing the current employer promptly: Staying silent makes it look like you're hiding something. A brief, factual disclosure to your employer protects you from later being seen as complicit.
- Ignoring formal notices or summons: A summons is not optional. Failing to respond within time can lead to ex-parte proceedings going against you.
- Posting about the situation on social media: Any public statement about the dispute can be used against you. Say nothing publicly until the matter is fully resolved.
- Engaging an advocate without relevant domain experience: Employment law and evidence law disputes involving electronically recorded conversations have specific procedural requirements that general practitioners may not be fully familiar with. The evidentiary challenge strategy, the timing of objections, and the framing of your role as a witness versus a party all require domain-specific handling. An advocate who regularly deals with employment and evidence matters can identify these nuances early and position you correctly before any forum.