Cessation of Employment Due to Unauthorised Absence Is Not Illegal Termination: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that cessation of employment would not amount to illegal termination where a workman absents himself from duty without authorisation and fails to produce any documentary proof explaining or intimating the absence.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed an appeal filed by M/s Rifilis Engineering Pvt Ltd against the Allahabad High Court's March 13, 2024 judgment, which had upheld a labour court award directing the company to reinstate employee Arjun Gupta with 50% back wages.

Setting aside both the high court's judgment and the labour court's award, the Supreme Court found that the employee had remained absent without authorisation, did not send any written communication to the employer during his absence, produced no documentary evidence explaining the absence, and failed to prove that he had attempted to rejoin duty.

"Therefore, the labour court and the high court erred in granting relief in the absence of such evidence. The writ petition of the appellant was liable to be allowed," the Bench held.

Why did the Supreme Court reject the employee's claim of illegal termination?

According to the employer, the respondent-employee absented himself from duty without informing any company official on May 14, 2012. The company maintained that he was never terminated and that the cessation of his employment was solely the result of his unauthorised and unexplained absence.

The employee, however, claimed that he had gone on leave because his mother was seriously ill and had verbally informed his superior before leaving. He further alleged that when he returned to work on June 8, 2012, he was not allowed to resume duty and was illegally removed from service from that date.

The labour court accepted his case and passed an award directing his reinstatement with back wages, which was later upheld by the Allahabad High Court.

Notice sent to permanent address not employer's fault

Before the Supreme Court, the employer submitted that it had sent a notice to the only permanent address available in its records - the address furnished by the employee at the time of his appointment. It also pointed out that even after the labour court's award was published, the employee failed to rejoin service despite multiple communications issued by the company.

The employee argued that the registered notice never reached him because it had been sent to his permanent address in Bihar instead of his residential address in Gautam Budh Nagar. He also alleged that the management harassed him, refused to take him back on duty, and denied him his lawful wages.

After examining the record, the Supreme Court noted that although the notice had indeed been sent to the employee's permanent address in Bihar, the employer could not be faulted for doing so.

"The notice was sent to the only address available in the employer's records, which was the address furnished by the respondent-employee himself at the time of his appointment," the Bench observed.

The Court added that an employer can only be expected to communicate with an employee at the address provided by the employee. If the employee had changed his place of residence, it was his responsibility to inform the employer.

"He cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own omission in this regard," the Bench said.

No documentary proof to support absence or rejoining attempt

Court also found no evidence to support the employee's claim that he had taken leave because of his mother's illness.

Calling the plea "entirely unsubstantiated", the Bench noted that no documentary evidence had been placed on record. It further observed that during the entire period of absence, the employee did not send even a single written communication explaining his absence or seeking leave.

"Had his explanation been genuine, he could have sent a letter or other written intimation. Having failed to do so, he cannot now rely solely on an oral assertion to justify his unauthorised absence," Court said.

Similarly, the employee's claim that he had reported for duty on June 8, 2012, but was denied entry, was also found to be unsupported by any documentary evidence.

In view of these findings, the Supreme Court set aside the high court's judgment and the labour court's award, including the direction to reinstate the employee with 50% back wages and all consequential benefits.

Case Title: M/s Rifilis Engineering Pvt Ltd Vs Arjun Gupta

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Date of Judgment: May 22, 2026