An employer satisfies notice requirements by contacting an employee at the last known recorded address. Without documentary evidence for absence or attempted resumption of service, unsupported oral claims by an employee are insufficient to warrant judicial intervention or relief from industrial adjudication.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 13th March 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No. 8077/2024, whereby the appellant’s writ petition has been dismissed.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

3.1. The appellant is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and designing water features.

3.2. Respondent no. 2 was employed with the appellant-company on the post of ‘Molder’ with effect from 1st August 2006.

3.3. On 14th May 2012, the respondent-employee absented himself from duty without any intimation to any official of the appellant-company.

3.4. The appellant-company issued a registered letter/notice dated 18th May 2012 to the respondent-employee, at the last known permanent address furnished by him, calling upon him to explain his unauthorised absence failing which strict action would be taken. This notice remained un-replied to.

3.5. The respondent-employee claims to have returned to the appellant’s office on 8th June 2012 and attempted to join duty but alleges that he was not permitted to do so and was illegally removed from service with effect from that date.

3.6. On 22nd June 2012, the respondent-employee filed a complaint before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The complaint was registered as C.P. Suit No. 427/2012 and referred to the Conciliation Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, U.P., under Section 4 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3.7. On 21st May 2013, based on the Conciliation Officer’s report, the Deputy Labour Commissioner referred the dispute to the Labour Court, which was registered as Adjudication Dispute No. 361/2013.

3.8. The Labour Court passed an ex-parte award dated 23rd February 2022 in favour of the respondent-employee, directing the appellant to reinstate him in continuation of his earlier service and to pay his entire salary from the date of discontinuation of service till the date of reinstatement, along with all consequential benefits.

3.9. On 19th July 2022, the appellant came to learn of the ex-parte award and filed a recall application seeking to set it aside.

3.10. The Labour Court, by order dated 2nd January 2023, dismissed the application for setting aside the ex-parte award.

3.11. The appellant then preferred Writ-C No. 5479/2023 before the High Court of Allahabad, challenging both the ex-parte award and the dismissal of the recall application. By order dated 2nd March 2023, the High Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for a fresh hearing.

3.12. Upon remand, the Labour Court, vide order dated 27th October 2023, once again decided the dispute in favour of the respondent-employee. It directed the appellant to reinstate him in continuation of his earlier service, along with 50% back wages from the date of discontinuation of service till the date of publication of the award, and full salary and other benefits thereafter. The award was published on 8th December 2023.

3.13. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant preferred Writ-C No. 8077/2024 before the High Court of Allahabad, seeking to set it aside.

3.14. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and upheld the Labour Court’s award. The High Court observed that the registered letter dated 18th May 2012 had been sent to the respondent-employee’s permanent address in Bihar, rather than to the address at which he was actually residing in Gaut