Employee Who Didn't Inform Employer Of Address Change Can't Raise Plea Of Non-Receipt Of Show-Cause Notice : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has set aside a Labour Court award directing reinstatement of an employee with back wages, holding that an employee who remained absent without authorization and failed to substantiate claims of being prevented from rejoining duty cannot seek relief on the basis of unverified assertions.The employee contended that the notice never reached him because it was sent to his permanent address in Bihar rather than his residence in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, and maintained that he had been illegally denied rejoining.Rejecting the employee's contentions, the Supreme Court held that the employer could not be faulted for sending the notice to the address furnished by the employee himself.“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 court observed. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the Respondent, working as an employee in the Appellant company, remained unauthorizedly absent for about 24 days, and was served a show cause notice at his permanent residential address in Bihar, to explain his absence failing which strict action would be taken; however, being residing at Noida, he had never received a show cause notice by the company.Since the current residential address was not updated with the employer, the notice served at his Bihar residence remained unreplied. The dispute arose when the Respondent sought to rejoin the service after 24 days of absence but was restrained by the Appellant-company from joining. The Respondent contended that he had informed his superior officer and remained absent from the service because of his mother's ill health. The Appellant's refusal to permit the Respondent to re-join the service led to a series of litigation, whereby, ultimately, the Allahabad High Court directed the Appellant to reinstate the Respondent to service with back wages, prompting the Appellant to move to the Supreme Court. Setting aside the impugned order, the Court accepted the Appellant-employer's contention that the Respondent's unauthorized absence from the service and a lack of documentary evidence to show that he remained absent from work due to his mother's ill health. The Court noted that in the absence of any documentary evidence showing that he remained absent to take care of his mother's ill health, it would not be prudent to rely on his undocumented plea regarding his unauthorized absence from the service. “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. More significantly, during the period of absence, the respondent-employee did not send a single written communication to his employer explaining the reasons for 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.”, the court said. “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. The writ petition of the appellant was liable to be allowed.”, the court held. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the Respondent's removal from the service was validated. Cause Title: M/S RIFILIS ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. VS. ARJUN GUPTACitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 636Click here to download orderAppearance: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Gupta, AOR Ms. Harshita, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Sneha Singh, Adv. Mrs. Sangita Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha, Adv. Ms. Pooja, Adv. Mr. Hemant Kumar Sagar, Adv. Mr. Subhash Chandra Sagar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR

Employee Who Didn't Inform Employer Of Address Change Can't Raise Plea Of Non-Receipt Of Show-Cause Notice : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Employee Who Didn't Inform Employer Of Address Change Can't Raise Plea Of Non-Receipt Of Show-Cause Notice : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers