Introduction
An employee disappears from work without notice. The employer sends a registered letter to the address on file. No reply comes. Weeks later, the employee surfaces, claims he tried to return and was turned away, and files a complaint before the Labour Commissioner. The Labour Court awards reinstatement with full back wages. The High Court upholds it. The Supreme Court sets it all aside.
That is the essential arc of M/s Rifilis Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Arjun Gupta, SLP (Civil) No. 26434 OF 2024, decided by a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta on May 22, 2026. The judgment is short. It does not break new legal ground. But it reinforces, with clarity, a proposition that Labour Courts and High Courts have repeatedly lost sight of: the burden of explaining unauthorised absence rests on the employee, and silence during that absence cannot later be papered over with oral assertions.
For employers navigating disputes arising from employee absenteeism, this judgment offers a direct and practical framework for understanding when cessation of service is defensible and what documentation is necessary to sustain that position.
Factual Background
The appellant, M/s Rifilis Engineering Pvt. Ltd., is a company engaged in the manufacture and design of water features. The respondent-employee, Arjun Gupta, had been employed as a Molder with the company since August 1, 2006.
On May 14, 2012, the employee absented himself from duty without any intimation to any official of the company. The company issued a registered notice on May 18, 2012, addressed to the permanent address furnished by the employee at the time of appointment, calling upon him to explain his absence and warning of strict action in the event of non-compliance. The notice went unanswered.
The employee subsequently claimed to have returned to the company’s office on June 8, 2012, and alleged that he was refused permission to rejoin duty and was illegally removed from service on that date. He filed a complaint before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, which was referred to the Labour Court as Adjudication Dispute No. 361/2013.
The Labour Court passed an ex-parte award directing reinstatement with full back wages. The company challenged this, and the matter was eventually remanded by the Allahabad High Court for fresh hearing. On remand, the Labour Court once again decided in favour of the employee, directing reinstatement with 50% back wages from the date of discontinuation until the date of publication of the award, and full salary thereafter. The High Court upheld this award, placing emphasis on the fact that the registered notice had been sent to the employee’s permanent address in Bihar rather than to his residential address in Gautam Budh Nagar.
The company approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Courts' Findings
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside both the Labour Court award and the High Court judgment. Three findings form the core of the decision.
- Question of the notice address: The High Court had faulted the employer for sending the registered notice to the employee’s permanent address in Bihar rather than to his actual place of residence. The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning. The notice was sent to the only address available in the employer’s records, which was the address the employee himself had furnished at the time of appointment. The Court held that an employer can only be expected to communicate at the address the employee has provided, and that if the employee had changed his place of residence, the obligation to inform the employer of that change rested squarely on the employee. He could not be permitted to take advantage of his own omission.
- On the claim of illness and verbal intimation: The employee claimed that his absence was caused by his mother’s serious illness and that he had verbally informed his superior before leaving. The Court found this claim entirely unsubstantiated. No documentary evidence was placed on record in support of it. Crucially, during the entire period of absence, the employee did not send a single written communication to his employer explaining the reasons for his absence or seeking leave. The Court observed that had the explanation been genuine, a letter or other written intimation could and should have been sent.
- On the claim of refusal to rejoin: The employee alleged that he had returned on June 8, 2012 and was refused permission to rejoin. This claim too was unsupported by any documentary evidence. The Court found it insufficient to ground a finding of illegal termination.
Taking these findings together, the Court concluded that the employee had absented himself without authorisation, had failed to send any written communication during his absence, had led no documentary evidence to explain his absence, and had produced no evidence of any attempt to rejoin duty. In these circumstances, the cessation of his employment was a consequence of his own conduct and could not be characterised as an illegal removal or termination by the employer.
What This Means for Employers
The judgment reinforces several propositions that are directly actionable for employers managing absenteeism and the disputes that follow from it.
- Cessation of service is legally distinct from termination: Where an employee’s departure from employment is caused by their own unauthorised and unexplained absence, it cannot automatically be recast as an act of the employer. The absence itself, if unaddressed by the employee, becomes the operative cause of the cessation.
- The address on record is the employer’s legal point of contact: Employers who send notices to the address furnished by an employee at the time of appointment are acting within their obligations. If an employee fails to update their address, the consequences of non-receipt of notices cannot be attributed to the employer. This has direct implications for how HR teams maintain and verify employee records.
- Oral assertions carry no weight without documentary support: Claims of verbal intimation to superiors, verbal refusal to allow rejoining, or verbal communication of reasons for absence will not hold up before Labour Courts or appellate forums if they are not backed by contemporaneous written evidence. Employees bear this evidentiary burden, and employers should ensure their own internal records reflect what was and was not communicated.
- The employer’s notice practice matters: The issuance of a registered notice calling upon the employee to explain absence and warning of strict action is a foundational step. Employers must ensure this step is taken promptly, documented carefully, and dispatched through a mode that creates a record of delivery or attempted delivery.
- Standing orders and service rules should expressly address unauthorised absence: Employers whose standing orders provide for deemed cessation or abandonment of service upon prolonged unauthorised absence are in a stronger position to defend against reinstatement claims. Where such provisions exist and the procedural steps preceding deemed cessation are followed, the risk of an adverse Labour Court award is significantly reduced.
AMLEGALS Remarks
The Rifilis Engineering judgment is a timely reminder that employment disputes are not decided on sympathy alone. Courts are required to assess evidence, and the evidentiary burden on an employee claiming illegal termination is a real one. Where that burden goes unmet because the employee chose to remain silent during a period of absence, failed to maintain communication with the employer, and produced nothing in writing to support either the reason for the absence or the alleged refusal of rejoining, the claim cannot succeed.
For employers, the practical takeaway is straightforward: build and maintain a paper trail from the moment an employee goes absent without authorisation. Issue notices promptly to the address on record. Follow up through multiple modes where possible. Document every interaction. If the employee does not respond, that silence becomes part of the record.
The judgment also puts Labour Courts and High Courts on notice that granting reinstatement and back wages without an adequate evidentiary foundation is an error that will not survive appellate scrutiny. The Supreme Court’s willingness to step in and reverse concurrent
For any queries or feedback, feel free to connect with Dhwani.tandon@amlegals or Hiteashi.desai@amlegals.com