IITian Director Prashant Joshua: 7 Months Silence. 0 Salary. Now 90 More Days?

After seven months of silence, no salary payments, and unanswered emails, the management finally held an online meeting with selected employees.

This meeting was led by a Dubai-based Director and IITian — Prashant Joshua.

The ask was simple:

Give us 90 more days.

No guarantee of payment.

Repayment depends entirely on whether a new business works.

At first glance, this may sound like an attempt at resolution. But when examined alongside what was admitted during the same meeting, a very different picture emerges.

What Was Admitted

During the meeting, it was clearly stated that:

• By August 2025, the company had almost no cash left, with only around 70 to 80 lakhs remaining

• Most of this amount was planned for player withdrawals, not employee salaries

• Post the regulatory ban, no investor or banker was willing to fund the company

• The management had internally realised that no one would invest in a company impacted by a government ban

• By November to December 2025, it was evident that the business could not be rebuilt in India

Despite this:

Employees continued working from August till January.

There was:

• No formal communication

• No written disclosure of financial distress

• No clarity on salary payments

• No documented request or consent from employees to continue working under such conditions

It has also been admitted that the management should have communicated this earlier, but failed to do so.

Knowledge Was There. Communication Was Not.

This is not a situation where the company discovered its difficulties later.

By their own admission, the financial position was clear as early as August. The funding challenges were known. The business viability was already in doubt.

As an IITian and a Director with full visibility into the company’s financial and operational realities, this responsibility was not optional. The sequence of events suggests a conscious disregard for the vulnerable position employees were placed in.

Yet, employees were allowed to continue working for months, relying on verbal assurances, without being told the truth.

The 90 Day Proposal Without Assurance

Another critical aspect that cannot be ignored is the refusal to provide even basic assurance against the so called 90 day plan. When employees requested post dated cheques as a form of commitment, the same was refused on the ground that it would be “illegal”. This position is difficult to reconcile with the simultaneous request for trust and additional time. If the intent to repay is genuine, there should be willingness to provide some form of enforceable assurance rather than relying purely on verbal commitments.

Statutory Obligations Are Not Negotiable

Equally concerning is the apparent attempt to position employee dues against experience letters and job references. These are not matters open for negotiation or goodwill. Relieving letters, experience certificates, provident fund compliances, and other statutory obligations are mandatory responsibilities of the company under Indian law. They cannot be used as leverage or bargaining tools in lieu of unpaid salaries.

Serious Concerns on Tax Compliance

There are also serious concerns regarding statutory financial compliances. It is understood that tax was deducted from employee salaries prior to August, however there is no clarity on whether such deductions were deposited with the Income Tax Department. If these amounts have not been deposited, it would constitute a significant violation of law with potential personal liability implications for those responsible.

Selective Communication and Lack of Transparency

Even now, communication is not being made transparently to all employees. Instead, it is being routed through selective interactions. In a situation involving unpaid salaries and financial distress, such selective communication only deepens concerns around transparency and intent.

Final Thought

When individuals with strong academic and professional backgrounds operate with full awareness of these legal obligations, the issue goes beyond business failure. It raises a larger concern about the misuse of knowledge and position in a manner that places employees at a clear disadvantage.

This is no longer just a story of a struggling company.

It is a question of accountability.

If the management knew the reality in August, and admits today that communication should have been made then, the question remains:

Why were employees made to continue working for months without being told the truth?

Disclaimer

This article is based on statements made during an online interaction and internal understanding of events. The positions of individuals mentioned refer to their roles during the relevant time period, and their current status may have changed.