The paper studies the problems of applying article 234 of RF Labor Code to the liability of employer forillegal deprivation of work. The author specifies the majour features of illegal deprivation of the right towork for an employee and points to the typical controversial situations in applying the norms. Evaluationof liability cases against the employer for deprivation of work historically and the influence of the currentjudicial practice in courts of general jurisdiction and in RF higher judicial instances. As to the cases ofillegal deprivation of work, the article studies the degree of illegality, possibility to apply article 234 of RFLabour Code to the cases of depriving the right to work by violating the majour employee’s guarantees.Besides, the paper examines the authorities of state bodies and the bodies entitled to recognize the factof such deprivation as illegal. The paper shows that it is inappropriate for employer to restore employeesvoluntarily by cancelling the dismissal orders, changing the cause of dismissal or transferring the dateof dismissal. Hence, the employer may not serve as a jurisdictional body. The materials of the currentjudicial practice studied by the author reflect the specifics of applying article 234 of RF Labour Code bygeneral jurisdiction courts, specifying the majour controversies some of which served as a basis for thedecisions of RF Supreme Court Plenum. To avoid the cases of abusing the right of the employee as tothe free circulation of work record books in the RF, the author proposes to arrange the federal register ofwork record books in the RF. The article defines illegal deprivation of work for employee.