HC slams Confed for ‘forced labour’, orders release of 7-year salary arrears

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has come down heavily on the Haryana State Federation of Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd (Confed), directing it to release the salary arrears of seven years to a former employee, along with 6% interest, within three months.The court also directed Confed to pay a Rs 2 lakh fine for violating the employee's fundamental rights.The bench headed by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar termed the conduct of the state-run federation "wholly unacceptable", observing that a public authority subjected its employee Duni Chand to indignity by forcing him to litigate for decades for rightful dues.The case concerns a writ petition seeking payment of Duni Chand's unpaid salary from Oct 1989 to July 1996. The petitioner, appointed as a salesman in 1979 and posted at Central Cooperative Stores, Mandi Dabwali, in 1983, claimed that he was denied wages from Oct 1989 and eventually relieved without a formal termination order.The court held that non-payment of wages amounted to "forced labour" under Article 23 and violated the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It noted that denying salary for 81 months constituted a gross infringement of constitutional protections.Strongly criticising Confed, the court said the state could not exploit employees or hide behind technicalities to deny lawful wages. It quashed a 2010 communication rejecting the petitioner's claim, calling it illegal and arbitrary.The court observed that the only ground cited by Confed for denying payment was its claim that the petitioner was not its employee but was instead employed by the Central Cooperative Stores, Mandi Dabwali. While Confed did not dispute that the dues were payable, it argued that the store alone held the liability.According to Confed, since the store has gone into liquidation and has been wound up without any realisable assets, the petitioner's claim cannot be enforced and must be treated as an unpaid liability.The bench also highlighted repeated non-compliance with earlier court orders in 1992 and subsequent proceedings, forcing the petitioner into prolonged litigation.MSID:: 130679285 413 |