NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has overturned a labour court verdict and ruled that an employee who fails to inform his employer about a change in his permanent address cannot later challenge disciplinary action on the ground that he never received the notice sent to him.What was the issueArjun Gupta had been working as a molder in a Noida-based company that manufactures water features, since August 2006. On May 14, 2012, Gupta left work without informing anyone at the firm.The company sent him a registered notice on May 18, 2012, asking him to explain his absence, failing which strict action would be taken. The notice was sent to the only address Rifilis Engineering had on record — Gupta’s permanent address in Bihar, which he had provided at the time of joining. The notice went unanswered.Gupta claimed he returned to the office on June 8, 2012 and tried to rejoin duty but was not allowed to do so. He said he had left because his mother was seriously ill and had verbally informed his supervisor before leaving. Aggrieved, he filed a complaint before the Deputy Labour Commissioner in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.The labour court in October 2023 again ruled in Gupta’s favour, directing reinstatement with 50 per cent back wages from the date of termination and full salary thereafter and the Allahabad high court upheld this order, as per a LiveLaw report.The company then challenged the order before the Supreme Court.What the Supreme Court saidA bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ruled entirely in favour of Rifilis Engineering and set aside both the labour court order and the Allahabad high court order.The court examined Gupta’s two main claims — that the notice never reached him because it was sent to his Bihar address, and that he was stopped from rejoining duty on June 8, 2012 — and found neither supported by any evidence.On the address issue, the bench noted that Gupta himself had provided that address at the time of joining. “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,” it said.On Gupta’s claim that his absence was due to his mother’s illness and that he had verbally informed his supervisor, the court found no documentary evidence to support this. “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,” it said.The Supreme Court found that both the labour court and the high court were wrong to rule in Gupta’s favour when he had produced no evidence to support his claims. It cancelled the directions for reinstatement, back wages, and all other benefits.
