Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Duni Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks unpaid salary from employer for services rendered 1989-1996. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties contest employer-employee relationship and liability for wage liquidation. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. parent entity retains employer status regardless of internal store transfers. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. right to wages is protected under constitutional rights to livelihood. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. court orders wage payment with interest and exemplary costs. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release and pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period from October, 1989 to 03.07.1996, the date, from which he was relieved from service.
BRIEF FACTS
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Salesman in the Haryana State Federation of Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited (CONFED) vide appointment letter dated 18.05.1979 (Mark 'X'). In the year 1983, the petitioner was posted to the Central Co-operative Consu
The right to receive wages for work performed is a fundamental right linked to the right to livelihood. A parent organization remains the principal employer for staff on deputation and cannot evade l....
Point of law: Affirmative action to make the remedy effective is of the essence of the right which otherwise becomes sterile. A responsible municipal council constituted for the precise purpose of pr....
Point of law: non-payment of salary creates dent on the financial condition of an ordinary employee who is getting meager income as a salary. That would temporarily deprive right to property, though ....
The principle of equal treatment mandates that similarly situated employees must receive the same benefits, including salary arrears, to avoid discrimination.
Teachers are entitled to be paid salary from the date of creation of the post. An executive order cannot override express statutory provisions. The right to livelihood, including the right to receive....
The State's withholding of salaries for teachers for 19 months constitutes forced labour, violating Article 23 of the Constitution, which prohibits such practices.
The court held that withholding salaries for work is a violation of Article 23, equating it to forced labour, and mandated immediate payment to uphold human dignity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
