Supreme Court Sets Aside Reinstatement Award Where Employee Led No Evidence of Unauthorised Absence

A Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta reversed reinstatement and back-wages directions, holding an employee cannot benefit from his own failure to inform his employer of an address change.

The Supreme Court has set aside a Labour Court reinstatement award and the Allahabad High Court judgment that upheld it, ruling that an employee who absented himself without written intimation, produced no documentary evidence to explain his absence, and offered no proof of an attempt to rejoin duty cannot claim reinstatement with back wages. The order, passed on 22 May 2026 by a Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, cancels all directions for reinstatement, 50% back wages, and consequential benefits that had been running against M/S Rifilis Engineering Pvt. Ltd. since the Labour Court's award of 27 October 2023. The Court found that both the Labour Court and the High Court erred in granting relief in the absence of supporting evidence.

How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court

Arjun Gupta was employed as a Molder with Rifilis Engineering — a company engaged in manufacturing and designing water features — from 1 August 2006. On 14 May 2012, he absented himself from duty without any intimation to any official of the company.

The company issued a registered notice dated 18 May 2012 to the permanent address Gupta had furnished at the time of his appointment, calling upon him to explain his unauthorised absence and warning of strict action. The notice went unanswered. Gupta later claimed he returned to the office on 8 June 2012 and attempted to rejoin duty but was not permitted to do so, and that he had been illegally removed from service from that date.

On 22 June 2012, Gupta filed a complaint before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, registered as C.P. Suit No. 427/2012. The matter was referred to the Conciliation Officer under Section 4 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On 21 May 2013, the Deputy Labour Commissioner referred the dispute to the Labour Court, where it was registered as Adjudication Dispute No. 361/2013.

The Labour Court passed an ex-parte award on 23 February 2022 directing reinstatement in continuation of service with full back wages and all consequential benefits. The company came to know of this award only on 19 July 2022 and filed a recall application, which the Labour Court dismissed on 2 January 2023.

Rifilis Engineering then filed Writ-C No. 5479/2023 before the Allahabad High Court. By order dated 2 March 2023, the High Court allowed that writ petition and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for a fresh hearing. Upon remand, the Labour Court again decided in Gupta's favour on 27 October 2023, directing reinstatement with 50% back wages from the date of discontinuation of service till the date of publication of the award, and full salary and benefits thereafter. The award was published on 8 December 2023.

The company challenged this fresh award in Writ-C No. 8077/2024. The High Court dismissed that petition on 13 March 2024, observing that the registered notice of 18 May 2012 had been sent to Gupta's permanent address in Bihar rather than to the address where he was actually residing in Gautam Budh Nagar at the time. Rifilis Engineering then approached the Supreme Court by way of SLP (Civil) No. 26434 of 2024.

The Court's Findings on the Notice and the Absence

The Supreme Court addressed the High Court's central finding — that the notice was sent to the wrong address — and rejected the inference drawn from it. The Court held that the notice was sent to the only address available in the employer's records, being the address the employee himself had furnished at the time of appointment. The Court said that an employer can only be expected to communicate with an employee at the address the employee has provided, and that if the employee had changed his place of residence, the obligation to inform the employer rested on him alone. The Court held that Gupta “cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own omission in this regard.”

On the question of why Gupta absented himself, the Court found his explanation entirely unsubstantiated. Gupta claimed his mother was seriously ill and that he had verbally informed his superior before leaving. The Court found no documentary evidence on record to support this claim. It observed that during the entire period of absence, Gupta did not send a single written communication to his employer explaining the reasons for his absence or seeking leave. The Court held that having failed to do so, he could not rely solely on an oral assertion to justify his unauthorised absence.

The Court was equally unpersuaded by Gupta's claim that he returned on 8 June 2012 and attempted to rejoin duty but was turned away. That claim too was found to be unsupported by any documentary evidence.

Why the Labour Court and High Court Erred

The Court's reasoning turned on the complete absence of evidence on the employee's side. It found that Gupta had absented himself without authorisation, had sent no written communication to his employer during his absence, had led no documentary evidence to explain the absence, and had produced no evidence of any attempt to rejoin duty.

Against this backdrop, the Court held that the Labour Court and the High Court erred in granting relief. The writ petition filed by Rifilis Engineering against the award was, in the Court's view, liable to have been allowed by the High Court. The High Court's focus on the address to which the notice was sent did not, in the Court's assessment, displace the fundamental evidentiary deficit on the employee's side.

The Court also noted that even after the Labour Court's award was published, Gupta failed to join service despite multiple communications issued by the company to that effect, without offering any explanation.

Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal. The impugned judgment and order dated 13 March 2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No. 8077/2024 was set aside and the writ petition filed by Rifilis Engineering was allowed. Consequently, the Labour Court's award dated 27 October 2023 in Adjudication Dispute No. 361/2013 was also set aside. The direction for reinstatement of Arjun Gupta, along with all ancillary directions with respect to 50% back wages and other consequential benefits, was cancelled and his claim was rejected in its entirety. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.