Authority: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 22 May 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: M/S Rifilis Engineering Pvt. Ltd (Appellant) vs. Arjun Gupta (Respondent).
  • Origin: Appeal against the High Court of Allahabad judgment dated 13 March 2024 (Writ‑C No. 8077/2024) which upheld a Labour Court award.
  • Background:
  • Respondent employed as “Molder” from 1 Aug 2006.
  • Absented without intimation on 14 May 2012; employer sent registered notice on 18 May 2012 to permanent address in Bihar, which went unanswered.
  • Respondent claimed return on 8 Jun 2012 but alleged he was denied reinstatement.
  • Complaint filed before Deputy Labour Commissioner on 22 Jun 2012 (C.P. Suit No. 427/2012); dispute referred to Labour Court (Adjudication Dispute No. 361/2013).
  • Labour Court ex‑parte award dated 23 Feb 2022 ordered reinstatement and full salary from date of discontinuation.
  • Appellant’s recall application dismissed on 2 Jan 2023; High Court allowed writ petition on 2 Mar 2023 and remanded for fresh hearing.
  • On remand, Labour Court on 27 Oct 2023 again ruled for respondent, directing reinstatement with 50% back wages up to award publication (8 Dec 2023) and full salary thereafter.
  • High Court dismissed appellant’s writ (13 Mar 2024), upholding the award, noting notice was sent to permanent address.
  • Supreme Court Observations:
  • Notice was sent to the only address on record, supplied by the employee at appointment; employer not liable for employee’s failure to update address.
  • Employee’s claim of maternal illness and verbal notice lacked documentary evidence.
  • No written communication from employee during absence; no proof of attempt to rejoin duty.
  • Court concluded Labour Court and High Court erred in granting relief without evidence; appellant’s writ should be allowed.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment (13 Mar 2024) and the Labour Court award (27 Oct 2023).
  • All directions for reinstatement, back wages, and consequential benefits to the respondent are cancelled.
  • The employee’s claim is rejected.
  • Any pending applications are disposed of.

Topics: Labour Law; Court Judgment