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...
TikToker, Camilla Alhassan has been sentenced to one year in prison by the Accra Circuit Court after pleading guilty to offensive conduct and the publication of false news. The sentence was handed...