An employee who failed to inform his employer about a change of residence cannot later challenge disciplinary proceedings by claiming that a show-cause notice never reached him, the Supreme Court has ruled while overturning orders that had directed his reinstatement with back wages.
The ruling came as the Court set aside a Labour Court award and a subsequent High Court decision that had favoured an employee removed from service after remaining absent without authorization. The Court found that the employee’s explanations for his prolonged absence were unsupported by evidence and that the employer had acted on the basis of the address officially provided by him.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that an employer is entitled to communicate with an employee using the address available in official records. If an employee relocates, the responsibility to update that information rests squarely on the employee.
The dispute arose after the employee stayed away from work for nearly 24 days without authorization. During this period, the company issued a show-cause notice to his permanent address in Bihar, warning him to explain his absence. However, the employee was then residing in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, and claimed he never received the notice.
According to the employee, he had informed his superior orally before leaving and had remained away from work because his mother was seriously ill. He further alleged that when he later attempted to return, the company prevented him from rejoining duty.
Because the employer’s records still reflected his Bihar address, the notice went unanswered. The matter eventually reached the courts, with the Allahabad High Court directing the company to reinstate him along with back wages.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
Examining the record, the Bench noted that the employee had not produced any documents to establish either his mother’s illness or any genuine effort to seek leave. Equally significant, the Court found no written communication sent by him to the employer during the period of absence.
The judges observed that if the explanation regarding his mother’s health was genuine, there was nothing preventing him from sending a letter, application, or any written intimation seeking leave or explaining his absence. Instead, his defence rested entirely on an unsupported oral claim.
The Court further stressed that an employee cannot derive an advantage from his own failure to update official records. Since the employer had dispatched the notice to the address furnished by the employee himself, no fault could be attributed to the company for the non-delivery of the communication.
Finding no evidence that the employee had properly explained his absence or made documented attempts to resume work, the Bench concluded that both the Labour Court and the High Court had erred in granting relief.
Holding that the employee’s absence remained unauthorized and unsupported by credible evidence, the Supreme Court allowed the employer’s appeal and upheld the validity of the employee’s removal from service.
