New Delhi, June 22: The Supreme Court has overturned the Allahabad High Court‘s ruling and a labor court order that mandated the reinstatement of an employee along with back pay. The court stated that an employee who was absent without permission and failed to substantiate their claims cannot be granted such relief.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta approved the appeal from Messrs Refillis Engineering Private Limited and dismissed the claims of employee Arjun Gupta. Gupta alleged that he was unlawfully terminated after attempting to return to work in June 2012.
The dispute began when Gupta, who had been employed as a molder since August 2006, stopped reporting to work on May 14, 2012. The company claimed he was absent without notice and sent a notice to his last known permanent address on May 18, 2012, seeking clarification.
Initially, the labor court issued a unilateral decision in favor of the employee in February 2022. However, after the Allahabad High Court remanded the case for reconsideration, the labor court ruled again in October 2023, ordering Gupta’s reinstatement with 50% back pay and associated benefits. This decision was later upheld by the Allahabad High Court.
The Supreme Court found that both the labor court and the High Court erred in granting relief without solid evidence. It rejected the Allahabad High Court’s argument that the company had sent the notice to Gupta’s permanent address in Bihar instead of his residence in Gautam Buddh Nagar. The Supreme Court stated that employers cannot be held accountable for relying on the address provided by the employee.
The bench, led by Justice Vikram Nath, remarked, “An employer can only be expected to contact an employee at the address provided by them. If the employee changed their residence, it was their responsibility to inform the employer. They cannot be allowed to take advantage of their negligence in this matter.”
The Supreme Court found no evidence supporting the employee’s claim that he was absent due to his mother’s serious illness or that he had informed his senior officer before leaving. The court stated, “This claim is entirely baseless. No documentary evidence has been presented in support of it.” Furthermore, the court noted that during his absence, the employee did not send any written notice explaining his absence or requesting leave. The court also dismissed Gupta’s claim that he returned on June 8, 2012, and attempted to resume duty but was denied permission, citing a lack of supporting documentation.
The ruling concluded, “We found that the respondent-employee was absent without permission, did not provide any written notice to his employer during his absence, failed to present any documentary evidence to explain his absence, and provided no proof of attempting to return to duty.”
Acknowledging that the labor court and High Court had erred in granting relief without substantial evidence, the Supreme Court accepted the company’s appeal and annulled the labor court’s October 2023 ruling and the Allahabad High Court’s March 2024 decision. Consequently, the directives for reinstatement, back pay, and all associated benefits were revoked, and the employee’s claims were dismissed.
Leave a Comment