Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi

New Delhi, Jun 22: The Supreme Court has overturned an order of the Allahabad High Court and a Labour Court award that had directed the reinstatement of an employee with back wages, ruling that a worker who remained absent without authorisation and failed to support his claims with evidence was not entitled to such relief.

A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed an appeal filed by Rifilis Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and dismissed the claims of employee Arjun Gupta, who had alleged that he was unlawfully denied rejoining service in June 2012.

The dispute dates back to May 2012, when Gupta, who had been employed as a moulder since August 2006, stopped reporting to work from May 14 onward.

The company maintained that he remained absent without informing the management and stated that it had issued a notice on May 18, 2012, to his last recorded permanent address seeking an explanation for his absence.

Initially, the Labour Court passed an ex parte order in February 2022 in favour of the employee. After the matter was remanded by the Allahabad High Court for fresh consideration, the Labour Court again ruled in Gupta's favour in October 2023, directing his reinstatement along with 50 per cent back wages and other service-related benefits. The High Court later upheld that decision.

However, the Supreme Court found that both lower forums had granted relief despite the absence of credible evidence.

Rejecting the High Court’s observation that the company should have sent notices to Gupta’s residence in Gautam Budh Nagar instead of his permanent address in Bihar, the apex court held that an employer is entitled to rely on the address provided by an employee in official records.

“An employer can only be expected to communicate with an employee at the address the employee has provided. If the employee had changed his residence, it was his responsibility to inform the employer. He cannot benefit from his own omission,” the Bench observed.

The court also dismissed Gupta’s contention that he had remained absent due to his mother’s serious illness and had informed his superior officer before leaving.

The judges noted that no documentary evidence had been produced to support the claim.

The Bench further pointed out that during the period of absence, Gupta neither submitted any written explanation nor sought formal leave from the company.

The Supreme Court also rejected his assertion that he had attempted to resume duty on June 8, 2012, but was prevented from rejoining, observing that no documentary proof had been presented to substantiate the allegation.

“We find that the employee remained absent without authorisation, failed to communicate with the employer during his absence, did not provide any documentary evidence explaining his absence, and produced no material to prove any attempt to rejoin duty,” the court said.

Concluding that both the Labour Court and the High Court had erred in granting relief without sufficient evidence, the Supreme Court allowed the company's appeal and quashed the Labour Court's October 2023 award as well as the Allahabad High Court's March 2024 judgment.

As a result, all directions relating to reinstatement, back wages and consequential service benefits have been set aside, and the employee's claim has been dismissed.