Back
Decades of Unpaid Sweat: HC Brands Salary Denial as '', Slaps ₹2 Lakh Costs on Haryana Coop Giant
In a scathing verdict that underscores the constitutional sanctity of a worker's wages, the has directed the to pay a former salesman his long-overdue salary for seven years of service, terming the non-payment as "" and "" in violation of . Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, in CWP-5074- ( ), not only ordered arrears from to July 1996 with 6% interest but also imposed of ₹2 lakhs on CONFED for repeated defiance of court orders and administrative apathy.
From 1979 Appointment to 35-Year Legal Ordeal
Duni Chand's journey began with an appointment as a Salesman by CONFED's Chief Executive Officer on , initially posted to a store in Sirsa and later transferred to in Mandi Dabwali in . Despite rendering services, his salary stopped from , and he was relieved on , without formal termination. What followed was a tortuous path: a writ petition (CWP-1932-) won in directing payment; a contempt petition closed on vague promises; another writ in leading to a order admitting dues but citing the store's liquidation; and CONFED's denial of liability. A final representation in prompted this petition.
The core questions: Was CONFED the despite postings to affiliated stores? Did prolonged non-payment infringe fundamental rights?
Petitioner's Plea: Undisputed Service, Inescapable Debt
Petitioner's counsel argued that the 1979 CONFED appointment letter, governed by its Staff Service Rules, established an unbroken employer-employee tie. Postings to stores were mere deputations. Prior courts had acknowledged dues, yet payments were stalled citing the Mandi Dabwali store's 2002 cancellation and lack of assets. Non-payment for 81 months violated rights to life (Art 21) and against (Art 23), especially as a exploited his labour.
CONFED's Defence: Not Our Employee, Store's Problem
Respondents countered that post- Staff Service Rules amendment, salesmen like Chand were allocated to individual stores, not CONFED's common cadre. Liability lay with the liquidated Mandi Dabwali store. They cited Muni Pal vs. (2024), where a coordinate bench refused relief against CONFED in similar facts, emphasizing no assets to recover from.
: CONFED as True Employer, Not Divorce
Justice Brar dismantled CONFED's stand, noting the undisputed 1979 appointment by CONFED and its control via postings and rules. The amendment's proviso mandated stores to seek staff from CONFED, often on ""—a tripartite link preserving lien with the parent, as affirmed by the in Sarita Singh vs. M/s Shree Infosoft Pvt. Ltd. (2022, citing Umapati Choudhary vs. State of Bihar , ). CONFED couldn't cherry-pick rules to deny liability while asserting control.
Drawing from Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978), the court expanded Art 21 to include , echoing Directive Principles (). In Man Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022 SCC OnLine SC 726), the held states must pay for work rendered, irregular appointment notwithstanding. Non-payment equated to under Art 23, impermissible exploitation by a state body.
The denial letter was quashed as "illegal and arbitrary."
Court's Voice: Quotes That Sting
Key Observations from the judgment:
"Non-payment of the salary for the services rendered for nearly seven years is a clear violation of his fundamental rights."
"The is an integral facet of the right to life guaranteed under ."
"Depriving a person of wages for work duly performed is impermissible... directly attracts the prohibition under ... as it effectively amounts to ."
"It is both shocking and inexplicable that the respondent-Federation specially being a State authority itself has resorted to the practices of exploitation and ‘beggar’, by extracting work from the petitioner without paying him any salary."
"Denial of salary for as long as 81 months constitutes a gross violation of the petitioner’s rights under Articles 21 and 23."
These lines, as highlighted in early reports like those noting the HC's condemnation of non-payment as "," capture the moral outrage.
Victory After Marathon: Payment Ordered, Costs for Contumacy
The writ was allowed: CONFED must compute and disburse arrears from to , with 6% interest from due dates, within three months. The ₹2 lakh costs punish repeated non-compliance—three prior petitions ignored—and signal zero tolerance for state entities delaying dues.
This ruling fortifies employee protections against principal employers dodging via subsidiaries, potentially aiding countless coop workers. It warns state bodies: exploit at your peril, or face constitutional wrath and wallet hits.
