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 liability for salary arrears by citing the liquidation of a dependent unit.

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 Consumer Stores Ltd., Mandi Dabwali. The petitioner claims that his salary was not paid w.e.f. September, 1989 and he was subsequently relieved from service on 03.07.1996, without any order of termination having been passed by a competent authority.

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that non- payment of the salary for the services rendered for nearly seven years is a clear violation of his fundamental rights. He submits that the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP-1932-1991, which was allowed on 01.04.1992 with a direction to the respondents to release the salary within a period of three months from the date of passing of the said order. When the aforesaid order was not complied with, the petitioner was forced to file a contempt petition i.e. COCP-1472-1999, which was disposed of on 14.08.2000 on the basis of statement made by the respondents that the payment would be made as and when funds would be available. The petitioner again filed CWP- 2906-2006 before this Court, which was disposed of on 27.02.2006 with a direction to the respondents to decide his representation by passing a speaking order. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.3-Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, vide order dated 05.06.2006 (Annexure P-3), admitted that the claim of the petitioner was payable, but declined payment on the sole ground that the concerned store had been cancelled in the year 2002 and had no realizable assets. Learned counsel further submits that the service record of the petitioner was forwarded to CONFED vide letter dated 30.09.2004, yet CONFED vide letter dated 21.01.2010 (Annexure P-4) wrongly denied its liability. A fresh representation dated 20.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) has also been submitted, however, the same yielded no result.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-CONFED, while relying upon the written statement, submits that as per the Staff Service Rules amended on 14.12.1983, the categories of Salesmen working with Central Cooperative Stores shall not be borne on the Common Cadre of the Federation. Consequently, the petitioner stood allocated to the Mandi Dabwali Store and as such, CONFED is not liable to pay his salary, especially when the concerned store has gone into liquidation with no assets. He places reliance on the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-25599-2019 titled as Muni Pal Vs. State of Haryana, decided on 19.04.2024 and contends that in similar circumstances, no direction was issued against CONFED.

OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case file with their able assistance.

6. It transpires that the sole basis for denial of payment by the respondents is their assertion that the petitioner was