The Supreme Court held that an employee who remains absent without permission, fails to provide credible proof for the absence, and does not inform the employer about a change of address cannot later challenge disciplinary proceedings citing non-receipt of a show-cause notice.
The Supreme Court ruled that an employee who stays away from duty without permission and does not produce credible proof for the absence cannot later seek reinstatement on the basis of unverified assertions.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside a Labour Court decision affirmed by the Allahabad High Court which had ordered the employer to reinstate the employee with back wages.
The Court observed,
“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 matter concerned an employee of M/s Rifilis Engineering Pvt. Ltd. who remained absent for 24 days without authorisation. During this period, the company issued a show-cause notice to his permanent address in Bihar, asking him to explain the absence and warning of disciplinary action if he did not respond.
The employee claimed that he was living in Noida and that he never received the notice because it was not sent to his current address. He also stated that his absence was due to his mother’s ill health and that he had informed a superior officer before leaving.
When he later attempted to rejoin, the company allegedly refused to permit him to return to work, resulting in extended legal proceedings.
However, the Supreme Court found the employer’s conduct to be justified. It noted that the company had issued the notice to the address provided by the employee and could not be expected to monitor or track changes in his residence unless he had formally informed them.
The Court further held that an employee cannot claim benefit from his own failure to update his address with the employer.
It also observed that the employee produced no supporting documents for his claim that he was absent to care for his ailing mother there was no medical record, leave application, written request, email, letter, or any other documented communication sent to the employer during the absence period.
The Bench emphasised that if the employee’s explanation was genuine, he could at least have informed the employer in writing.
The Court also noted that there was no material to show that the employee made any effort to return to duty after the period of absence ended.
Concluding that the Labour Court and the Allahabad High Court erred in granting relief despite the lack of evidence, the Supreme Court allowed the employer’s appeal and upheld the employee’s removal from service.
Arguments were advanced by Mr. Manish Kumar Gupta, AOR, along with Ms. Harshita, Mr. Chandan Kumar Singh, Ms. Sneha Singh, and Mrs. Sangita Gupta, Advocates, For the petitioner.
Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha, Ms. Pooja, Mr. Hemant Kumar Sagar, Mr. Subhash Chandra Sagar, and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocates, appeared along with Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR presented the respondents.
Case Title: M/s Rifilis Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Arjun Gupta