Supreme Court Overturns Labour Court Ruling: Employee's Absence Without Leave Costs Him Job

Supreme Court's Decision on Employee Reinstatement

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has overturned a ruling from the Allahabad High Court and a Labour Court decision that mandated the reinstatement of an employee along with back wages. The court concluded that an employee who was absent without permission and could not substantiate his claims was not entitled to such relief.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ruled in favor of M/s Rifilis Engineering Pvt. Ltd., dismissing the claims of Arjun Gupta, who contended that he was wrongfully terminated after attempting to return to work in June 2012.

The conflict began when Gupta, who had been employed as a moulder since August 2006, stopped reporting to work on May 14, 2012. The company asserted that he was absent without notice and had sent a letter on May 18, 2012, to his last known address requesting an explanation.

Initially, the Labour Court issued an ex parte ruling in favor of Gupta in February 2022. However, after the Allahabad High Court remanded the case for reconsideration, the Labour Court again ruled in favor of Gupta in October 2023, ordering his reinstatement with 50% back wages and additional benefits. This decision was later upheld by the High Court.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court determined that both the Labour Court and the High Court had made mistakes by granting relief without adequate evidence.

The apex court rejected the High Court's argument that the company had sent a notice to Gupta's permanent address in Bihar rather than his residence in Gautam Budh Nagar, stating that the employer was justified in using the address provided by the employee.

Justice Vikram Nath's bench remarked, "An employer can only be expected to communicate with an employee at the address the employee has provided. If the respondent-employee had changed his place of residence, the obligation to inform his employer of the change rested on him. He cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own omission in this regard."

The Supreme Court also found no evidence supporting Gupta's claim that he was absent due to his mother's serious illness or that he had notified his superior before leaving.

"This claim is entirely unsubstantiated. No documentary evidence has been placed on record in support of it," the court noted. It further stated that during his absence, Gupta did not submit any written communication explaining his situation or requesting leave.

The court dismissed Gupta's assertion that he returned on June 8, 2012, and sought to resume work but was denied entry, noting that this allegation lacked supporting documentation.

"We find that the respondent-employee absented himself without authorization, failed to send any written communication to his employer during his absence, has led no documentary evidence to explain his absence, and has produced no evidence of any attempt to rejoin duty," the judgment stated.

Concluding that the Labour Court and the High Court had erred in providing relief without supporting evidence, the Supreme Court accepted the company's appeal, nullifying the October 2023 Labour Court ruling and the March 2024 High Court judgment. Consequently, the orders for reinstatement, back wages, and all related service benefits were annulled, and Gupta's claims were dismissed.