THE BEYOND OBITER LAW BLOG: Legal News
2 min read
The Supreme Court has set aside a Labour Court award directing reinstatement of an employee with back wages, holding that an employee who remains absent without authorization and fails to substantiate the reasons for such absence cannot seek relief on the basis of unverified assertions. The Court observed that an employer cannot be faulted for communicating at the address furnished by the employee himself and that an employee cannot take advantage of his own failure to update his residential details.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta in a case where the respondent employee remained absent from duty for about 24 days without authorization. The employer issued a show-cause notice to the employee's permanent address in Bihar, calling upon him to explain his absence. However, the employee was residing in Noida at the time and claimed that he never received the notice as he had not updated his current address with the employer.
The dispute arose after the employee sought to rejoin service following his absence. According to him, he had verbally informed his superior officer that he needed to attend to his ailing mother and was subsequently prevented from resuming work. The employer disputed these claims and maintained that the employee had abandoned his duties without any valid justification.
Rejecting the employee's contention regarding non-receipt of the show-cause notice, 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 Bench further noted that the employee failed to produce any documentary evidence to support his claim that he remained absent due to his mother's illness. It also found that he had not sent any written communication to the employer during the period of absence seeking leave or explaining the circumstances.
The Court observed:
“The respondent-employee claims that his absence was due to his mother's serious illness and that he had verbally informed his superior before leaving. This claim is entirely unsubstantiated. No documentary evidence has been placed on record in support of it.”
Emphasizing that mere oral assertions cannot justify prolonged unauthorized absence, the Court held that had the explanation been genuine, the employee could have sent a written communication or other intimation to the employer during the relevant period.
The Bench concluded:
“We find that the respondent-employee absented himself without authorisation, 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. Therefore, the Labour Court and the High Court erred in granting relief in the absence of such evidence.”
Holding that the Labour Court and the Allahabad High Court had wrongly granted relief despite the absence of supporting material, the Supreme Court allowed the employer's appeal and upheld the employee's removal from service.