Withholding Salaries for Performed Work Violates Article 23, Amounts to 'Begar': Karnataka High Court - 2025-11-20

The Price of Dignity: Karnataka High Court Rules Unpaid Labour as ‘Begar’

In a powerful judicial intervention, Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the High Court of Karnataka has struck a blow against the systematic withholding of salaries, declaring that forcing employees to work without remuneration constitutes "begar"—the very form of forced labour prohibited by Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

The case involves a group of assistant teachers who, for nearly 19 months, continued to perform their duties in a school receiving government grants while their salaries remained unpaid. This ruling serves as a stern reminder that the dignity of the individual and the right to fair compensation are non-negotiable fundamental rights.

A Repeated Struggle for Basic Earnings

The dispute began following the administrative authorization to fill vacant posts in the fifth respondent’s school. While the petitioners were duly appointed and commenced their tenure, the State later attempted to withhold their salaries beginning in May 2024.

This saga led the petitioners to the High Court on four separate occasions. Despite multiple interim orders directing the state to abstain from precipitating actions or acknowledging the teachers' work, the bureaucratic impasse continued. The court noted that even as the legality of their appointments faced challenges in other ongoing proceedings, the teachers had consistently marked their attendance and discharged their duties without interruption.

Arguments: Duty vs. Bureaucratic Inertia

Counsel for the petitioners demonstrated, with the aid of muster rolls and official records, that the teachers had dutifully fulfilled their roles for 19 months. They argued that the state’s failure to pay constituted an exploitative act, devoid of any legal justification.

The state, represented by the High Court Government Pleader (HCGP), opted not to dispute the fact that the teachers had been working or that their salaries had been withheld. Instead, the defense rested on the pendency of related writ petitions—a justification Justice Nagaprasanna dismissed as "wholly untenable and bereft of any legal justification."

The Constitutional Imperative

Drawing deeply from the Supreme Court’s landmark verdict in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India , the Court analyzed the scope of Article 23. The Court emphasized that the Article is designed to protect citizens from all forms of forced labour, whether imposed by the State or private entities.

The Court held that the compulsion of economic circumstances—where an employee must work to survive or face destitution—creates a form of forced labour if that service is extracted without pay.

Key Observations

The judgment offers a scathing critique of the state's inaction, grounding its moral and legal authority in these observations:

• "The State’s defence, resting solely on the pendency of the writ proceedings, is wholly untenable and bereft of any legal justification."
• "In effect, these teachers have been compelled to render services in the fifth respondent – School without any remuneration whatsoever from the said date."
• "The liability to pay salary... strikes at the very heart of human dignity and stands in stark violation of Article 23 of the Constitution of India."
• "The Apex Court explains the scope of ‘begar’, to include several forms of forced labour and further holds that any form of work that is extracted from any person, without paying remuneration, would amount to begar."

The Final Verdict: Justice Served

The High Court issued a writ of mandamus to the second respondent, strictly ordering the release of all outstanding salaries owed to the petitioners from May 2024. The court has set a hard deadline of December 4, 2025.

In a significant move to ensure compliance, the Court directed that should the State fail to release these funds by the stipulated date, each petitioner shall be entitled to litigation costs of Rs. 25,000. This order reinforces the principle that employment contracts in public service cannot be used as a tool to impose involuntary servitude, upholding the constitutional promise of socio-economic justice for every worker in the nation.