INTRODUCTION
In industrial relations practice, compliance with lawful procedures and the adequacy of evidence frequently determine the outcome of employment disputes. Supreme Court Ruling No. 169 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2026 (“Supreme Court Ruling No. 169“) provides significant guidance on both aspects, particularly on the termination of an employment due to an employee’s unauthorized absence (mangkir) and the evidentiary requirements for claims relating to underpayment of wage.
The ruling demonstrates that strict compliance with procedural requirements and adequate supporting evidence constitute essential considerations in determining the validity of actions taken, and claims asserted, in industrial relations disputes.
Can an Employee Who Is Absent Without Leave Be Deemed to Have Resigned?
In Supreme Court Ruling No. 169, the employee submitted a claim against the employer on the grounds that he had been unlawfully terminated. However, the Panel of Judges of the Industrial Relations Court, whose judgment was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court, held that the employment relationship had not been terminated through the termination of the employment but rather deemed as a resignation, on the basis that the employee had remained absent without leave and had failed to return to work despite having been served with three written summonses.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the legal reasoning of the Industrial Relations Court at Kendari District Court, as follows:
“The employment relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is declared terminated and concluded because the Plaintiff is deemed to have resigned after being absent without leave and having been summoned by the Defendant through three written summonses, yet the Plaintiff persistently refused to return to work.”
This ruling confirms that an employee who remains absent without leave after having been duly summoned three times by the employer may be legally deemed to have resigned. However, the employer has an obligation to prove that the written summonses were properly issued to the absentee. Further, the employer must establish that the employee satisfies the criteria for an unauthorized absence under Article 154A paragraph (1) letter (j) of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower, as amended by Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Enactment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into Law. Given this, compliance with the legal procedures is a decisive factor in determining the validity of an employer’s termination of an employment relationship.
Employee Entitlements Remain Intact Despite Being Deemed to Have Resigned
Although Supreme Court Ruling No. 169 held that the employment relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant had ended because the Plaintiff was deemed to have resigned, the Court found that the Plaintiff remained entitled to receive the Compensation of Right (uang penggantian hak) and the Separation Pay (uang pisah) under Article 51 of Government Regulation No. 35 of 2021 (“GR No. 35 of 2021“).
In their consideration, the Panel of Judges stated as follows:
“The Plaintiff, who had been employed by the Defendant since 18 August 2021, and whose employment relationship is declared terminated because the Plaintiff is deemed to have resigned, is entitled to Compensation of Right and Separation Pay according to the applicable provisions (vide Article 51 of Government Regulation No. 35 of 2021 on Fixed-Term Employment Agreements, Outsourcing, Working Hours and Rest Periods, and Termination of Employment).”
For reference, Article 51 of GR No. 35 of 2021 states that:
“Entrepreneurs may conduct Termination of Employment Relationships upon Workers/Laborers because the Workers/Laborers are absent for 5 (five) business days consecutively or more without any written information with valid proof and have been summoned twice by Entrepreneurs in an appropriate manner and in writing; therefore the Workers/Laborers are entitled to:
a. Compensation of Right under of Article 40 paragraph (4); and
b. separation pay whose amount is regulated in an Employment Agreement, a Company Regulation, or a Collective Employment Agreement.”
That, together with the Court’s legal reasoning, demonstrate that an employee who is absent without leave and consequently deemed to have resigned does not automatically forfeit all employment entitlements as stated in the regulations. If the applicable legal requirements are met, the employee remains entitled to receive the Compensation of Right and Separation Pay. Therefore, certain employment rights continue to be protected as a legal consequence of the employment relationship that previously existed between the parties.
Proof for Claims on Underpayment of Wage
Another significant aspect of Supreme Court Ruling No. 169 is the Supreme Court’s legal reasoning on claims for underpayment of wage. As the court of first instance, the Industrial Relations Court ordered the employer to pay the shortfall of wage to the employee to IDR41,157,876.00. However, the Supreme Court overturned the judgment, explaining that the award lacked an adequate evidentiary basis.
The Supreme Court reasoned as follows:
“The determination by the Judex Facti of the payment of Plaintiff’s wage to IDR 41,157,876.00 (forty-one million one hundred fifty-seven thousand eight hundred seventy-six Rupiah) cannot be justified because the determination should have been made based on an examination conducted by the competent Manpower Inspector in order to obtain an accurate calculation reflecting the actual circumstances.
Since the calculation of the amount of the shortfall in payment was not supported by adequate evidence, particularly a Manpower’s Inspection Note (Nota Pengawas) issued by the Manpower Inspector, the third ruling on the merits must therefore be set aside.”
From an evidentiary standpoint, this ruling makes clear that a dispute on the underpayment of wage cannot be established solely on the basis of unilateral calculations made by either party. The Supreme Court recognised the findings contained in a Manpower’s Inspection Note (Nota Pengawas) as an essential evidentiary basis for determining if an underpayment of wage has occurred. Therefore, both employers and employees should ensure that any claim relating to lawful employment entitlements is supported by adequate documentary evidence and the results of an official manpower inspection.
CONCLUSION
Supreme Court Ruling No. 169 reaffirms that an employee who is absent without leave and the absent meet the requirements set out under Article 154A paragraph (1) letter (j) of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower, as amended by Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Enactment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into Law, and Article 51 of Government Regulation No. 35 of 2021, may be legally deemed to have resigned, provided that the employer has duly served written summonses in line with the applicable legal procedures. At the same time, the ruling confirms that employees who are deemed to have resigned remain entitled to receive the Compensation of Right (uang penggantian hak) and Separation Pay (uang pisah) according to the laws and regulations.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of a Manpower’s Inspection Note (Nota Pengawas) as a fundamental evidentiary document in the claims for underpayment of wage. The calculation of any underpayment of wage must be based upon an objective manpower inspection and supported by adequate documentary evidence. Therefore, the ruling provides greater legal certainty for both employers and employees while underscoring the importance of strict compliance with the statutory employment procedures and the proper evidentiary standards in the resolution of industrial relations disputes.
DISCLAIMER
This article analyzes the legal implications of employee absence without leave, claims relating to underpayment of wage, and the Supreme Court’s legal reasoning in Supreme Court Decision No. 169 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2026 within the Indonesian labor law system. This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should not act or rely solely on the information contained in this article without seeking appropriate professional legal counsel. Laws, regulations, and their interpretations may change over time, and their application may vary depending on specific facts and circumstances. For tailored legal advice or further clarification on the matters discussed in this article, please consult with a qualified legal professional.