Employee returns to work after unapproved leave and finds office access blocked: ‘Everyone was told if he comes…’

Securing time off from work can already be a complicated process, but a recent post on Reddit revealed an alarming situation that went far beyond routine leave disputes. The incident, shared on the Indian Workplace subreddit, described how an employee was deliberately prevented from entering the office floor despite remaining officially employed and listed as active on the company’s payroll.

According to the post, a team leader instructed both the IT department and workforce management to revoke the employee’s access to the office floor simply because he took leave without formal approval. Colleagues were reportedly told not to open the door for him and were instead directed to immediately alert senior staff if he appeared. The author of the post noted that this disturbing episode unfolded on their second day back at work after a month-long medical absence, underscoring what they felt was an increasingly hostile and abusive workplace culture.

The Reddit user explained that returning from medical leave had already been an exhausting experience filled with unnecessary pressure, repeated requests for documentation, and constant scrutiny from management. Having barely resumed duties, the writer witnessed the incident firsthand, making the situation feel even more unsettling.


The employee at the center of the controversy, referred to as X, had submitted a leave request roughly a week in advance. Although the team leader did not approve the request, X proceeded to take the day off due to personal reasons. The post pointed out that such situations are not unusual in corporate environments across India, where unapproved absences are often categorized later as unplanned leave or loss of pay. However, what followed this particular absence was described as shockingly disproportionate.

As soon as X failed to report to work, the team leader allegedly reacted with an extreme display of authority. Instructions were issued to revoke X’s access to the office floor, and workforce management staff reportedly moved around the workspace informing employees that they must not let him inside if he arrived. Instead, they were told to immediately contact senior personnel. This directive was entirely verbal and informal, yet treated as an unquestionable order.

The post emphasized that X was neither suspended nor terminated, nor was he serving a notice period. He remained an active employee, absent for only a single day. Despite this, management chose to bar him from entering the workspace, effectively preventing him from performing his duties. The writer argued that this action had nothing to do with attendance tracking or enforcing leave policies. Instead, it appeared to be a deliberate attempt to block an employee from working, thereby creating grounds to mark him absent.

By denying access and then recording the absence, the management was, in the author’s view, fabricating non-compliance rather than addressing the issue through proper channels. What made the situation even more troubling was the ease with which it was carried out. There were no official emails, no involvement from human resources, no written warnings, and no formal notices. Everything was handled through whispered instructions and unchecked authority, likely because documenting such actions would expose the company to serious legal consequences.

The author concluded by stating that while they had experienced unhealthy workplaces before, this incident crossed a new threshold. Physically blocking an employee from their workplace while still keeping them on payroll felt like harassment combined with indirect termination. The timing, coming immediately after the author’s own medical leave, made the environment feel increasingly aggressive and unsafe.

The post triggered widespread reactions from other Reddit users, many of whom expressed disbelief and concern. Some sarcastically suggested that such behavior might soon require security guards to enforce management’s whims, while others encouraged sharing the incident publicly to expose the practice. Several commenters agreed that the situation could and should have been handled in a far more professional and humane manner.