Bengaluru: A viral social media post alleging that 300 employees were dismissed without prior notice has prompted a clarification from Zoho, as reported by News18. The company has firmly denied the claims, stating that no full-time employees were laid off.
According to reports cited by News18, the controversy began with an anonymous post shared on the Blind app, where a user claimed they had been suddenly terminated along with hundreds of others. The post quickly gained traction online, raising concerns about job security and workplace practices within the Indian technology sector.
The viral message suggested that nearly 300 trainees were let go unexpectedly, with no explanation provided. It also included personal accounts, where the individual expressed regret over choosing Zoho over other companies such as TCS, Cognizant, and Capgemini, highlighting the financial impact of the alleged job loss.
However, Zoho rejected these allegations, clarifying that the claims stemmed from a misunderstanding. In statements shared with Hindustan Times and referenced by multiple media outlets, the company explained that the post had confused its internship programme with full-time employment.
Mohammed Sohail, Associate Director of Talent Acquisition and Global HR Operations at Zoho, stated that internships are designed as learning opportunities and do not guarantee permanent positions. He further noted that more than 30% of the 2026 intern cohort has either received full-time offers or is under evaluation.
The company emphasised that describing interns who were not absorbed into full-time roles as “laid off” is inaccurate. It added that those not selected complete their internships as planned and are free to pursue other opportunities.
The issue drew widespread attention partly because Zoho has maintained a long-standing no-layoffs policy, making the claims particularly surprising. As highlighted by News18 and other reports, the incident underscores how viral posts can sometimes misrepresent workplace practices, leading to public confusion.
-
-
-
-
