Punjab HC fines Haryana confed ₹2 lakh

Wage theft is usually discussed like a labour issue. This case turned into something bigger — a constitutional one. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has told Haryana State Federation of Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd, or CONFED, to pay a former employee, Duni Chand, his salary arrears for 81 months with 6% interest, and to hand over ₹2 lakh in exemplary costs. The court’s point was blunt: making someone work for years without pay is not a paperwork lapse. It is exploitation. (indianexpress.com) ### Who is Duni Chand? Duni Chand was a CONFED employee in Haryana who went to court after not being paid for nearly seven years even though he kept working. The arrears covered 81 months, and the dispute dragged on long after he had already been relieved from service — which is part of why the court reacted so sharply. (indianexpress.com) ### What did the court actually order? Justice Harpreet Singh Brar allowed Chand’s writ petition and directed CONFED to release the full unpaid salary arrears within three months. On top of that, the court added 6% annual interest and imposed ₹2 lakh in exemplary costs. That last part matters — exemplary costs are meant to punish conduct the court thinks is especially unacceptable, not just compensate the worker. (indianexpress.com) ### Why did the judge call it forced labour? Because work without wages is not really voluntary in any meaningful sense. The court treated the non-payment as more than an internal service dispute and said it struck at basic dignity and livelihood. In the coverage of the order, the judge described t(indianexpress.com)of the usual employer-employee bucket. (indianexpress.com) ### Why is that constitutional angle such a big deal? Basically, if a court says this is only a service matter, the fight stays narrow — salary due, file the claim, wait your turn. But if the court says non-payment of wages can violate fundamental rights, the state or a state-linked body looks less like a bad employer and more like a public authority breaching constitutional limits. That raises both the moral and legal cost of delay. (indianexpress.com) ### Why was CONFED singled out so hard? The catch is the employer was not accused of a short delay or a disputed increment. This was 81 months without salary. That scale made the case feel less like administrative negligence and more like a system deciding a worker could be used without being paid. The court’s use of exemplary costs shows it wanted to send a warning beyond this one file. (tribuneindia.com) ### Does this create a broad new rule? Not exactly in the way a statute does. But it does show how courts can frame wage non-payment by public bodies — especially extreme non-payment — as a rights issue. That framing can help other workers argue that delayed or denied wages ar(tribuneindia.com)g and remedy. (indianexpress.com) ### Why does this land right now? Because labour rights are back in public conversation around May Day, and this order gives that conversation a very concrete example. Not an abstract debate about standards — one worker, one employer, 81 unpaid months, and a court saying enough. (msn.com)nt thing here is not just that Duni Chand won money. It is that the court treated seven years of unpaid work as an assault on dignity, not a clerical mess. That makes the ruling sharper — and harder for public employers to shrug off.