Non-Payment Of Salary For Years Is 'Blatant Exploitation', Amounts To Forced Labour: High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Costs On Haryana Govt

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that denial of salary for services rendered over several years amounts to a violation of fundamental rights, including the right to livelihood under Article 21 and protection against forced labour under Article 23 of the Constitution.Justice Harpreet Singh Brar while allowing a plea filed by an employee, directed the Haryana State Federation of Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited (CONFED) to release arrears of salary for the period from October 1989 to July 3, 1996, along with 6% annual interest. The Court also imposed exemplary costs of ₹2 lakh on the Federation."Depriving a person of wages for work duly performed is impermissible within the constitutional framework. Non-payment of wages directly attracts the prohibition under Article 23 of the Constitution of India, as it effectively amounts to forced labour. Such action cannot be countenanced under any circumstances," the bench said.It added that, it is both shocking and inexplicable that the respondent-Federation, specially being a State authority, itself has resorted to the practices of exploitation and 'beggar', by extracting work from the petitioner without paying him any salary.Justice Brar highlighted that, denial of salary for as long as 81 months constitutes a gross violation of the petitioner's rights under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India. It is trite that fundamental rights cannot be waived, and therefore, mere delay or alleged failure to complete formalities cannot be construed as a waiver of the petitioner's entitlement to salary. No employer, least of all the State, can be permitted to deprive an employee of lawful wages on a recurring basis. The State cannot be allowed to cloak its inaction behind technical excuses so as to defeat the fundamental and human rights of its employees.The petitioner was appointed as a Salesman in CONFED in 1979 and later posted to cooperative stores in Sirsa and Mandi Dabwali. He contended that he was not paid salary from September 1989 onwards and was eventually relieved from service in 1996 without any formal termination order.Despite earlier rounds of litigation—including a writ petition allowed in 1992 and subsequent contempt proceedings—the petitioner's dues remained unpaid. Although the authorities acknowledged that the salary was payable, they denied liability on the ground that the concerned cooperative store had been liquidated and had no realizable assets.Rejecting the stand of CONFED, the Court held that the petitioner continued to remain an employee of the Federation throughout his service. It observed that his appointment, service conditions, and postings were all governed by CONFED, and his placement in cooperative stores was merely in the nature of deputation, which did not sever the employer-employee relationship.The Court termed the Federation's reliance on amended service rules to deny liability as “self-defeating” and contradictory, noting that the same rules established CONFED's overarching control over staffing in cooperative stores.Violation Of Fundamental RightsEmphasising the constitutional dimension, the Court held that withholding salary for nearly seven years constituted a gross violation of Articles 21 and 23. It relied on landmark judgments including Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Man Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh to reiterate that the right to life includes the right to livelihood, and that no employer can extract work without payment.The right to live with human dignity, free from exploitation, is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and derives its contents from the Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Articles 39(e) and (f), and Articles 41 and 42. This right necessarily includes the protection of basic conditions of human dignity. Any action that deprives a person of the enjoyment of these essential rights would amount to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the judge observed.It added that for individuals wholly or substantially dependent on wages or salary for their sustenance, the right to receive such wages assumes the character of a fundamental right.Mr. S.K. Tada, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana.Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.Title: Duni Chand v. State of Haryana and othersClick here to read order

Non-Payment Of Salary For Years Is 'Blatant Exploitation', Amounts To Forced Labour: High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Costs On Haryana Govt

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags