The Punjab and Haryana High Court has pulled up Haryana State Federation of Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited (CONFED) for making an employee work for nearly seven years without salary, terming it “blatant exploitation” and holding that non-payment of wages amounts to a violation of fundamental rights.

Allowing a writ petition filed by Duni Chand, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar directed CONFED to compute and release salary arrears for the period from October 1989 to July 3, 1996, along with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the due date till actual payment. The court also imposed exemplary costs of Rs 2 lakh on the Federation for what it described as a “flagrant violation” of the petitioner’s rights.

Duni Chand had approached the high court seeking release of unpaid salary after serving as a salesman. He was appointed in 1979 by CONFED and was later posted to the Central Co-operative Consumer Store at Mandi Dabwali in 1983. His salary stopped from September 1989, and he was relieved from service in July 1996 without any termination order.

Rejecting CONFED’s stand that Duni Chand was an employee of the Dabwali store, which later went into liquidation, and not of the Federation, the court held that records clearly established an employer-employee relationship with CONFED throughout his service.

“It is incomprehensible to this Court as to when the petitioner was appointed by the CONFED, when he was posted to Store at Sirsa and later at Mandi Dabwali by the CONFED, how does the respondent-Federation can come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not an employee of CONFED,” Justice Brar observed.

The court ruled that the employee’s posting to Dabwali was “merely in the nature of a deputation” and did not alter his relationship with CONFED as the principal employer.

Relying on the amended Staff Service Rules and Supreme Court precedent on deputation, the bench said CONFED continued to retain “overarching control and authority” over staffing at such stores and could not “approbate and reprobate” by denying its status as employer while invoking rules that affirmed its control.

“The amendment cannot be used as a shield by the principal employer to avoid its statutory and constitutional liabilities,” the court said.

On the constitutional question, the court held that denial of wages strikes at the core of the right to life and dignity under Article 21.

“The respondent-Federation, on one hand, has continued to avail the services of the petitioner, while on the other, has denied him his rightful salary. Such conduct amounts to blatant exploitation and effectively deprives the petitioner of his right to livelihood,” the judgment said.

The bench further held that non-payment of wages directly attracted Article 23, which prohibits forced labour.

“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,” it ruled.

Justice Brar also expressed anguish over the petitioner being forced into repeated litigation despite earlier favourable orders. The court noted that Duni Chand had moved the high court in 1991, initiated contempt proceedings in 1999 after non-compliance, filed another writ petition in 2006, and still had to return to court in the present case.

“The repeated disregard for the orders of this Court, coupled with the sheer administrative apathy and scant regard for the plight of a common man… shocks the judicial conscience,” the bench observed.

Appearing in the matter were advocate S.K. Tada for the petitioner, Additional Advocate General Piyush Khanna for Haryana, and advocate Vikrant Pamboo for respondents No. 2 to 4.

The court has directed that the entire exercise be completed preferably within three months of receipt of the certified copy of the order.